In the midst of my summer indolence, reading Chronicles proves to be one of the most nourishing experiences. There is no other monthly (except the New Criterion) which features such good writing on such a variety of subjects and which refuses to take anything for granted. The overwhelming majority of the intellectual culture of the West today lazily presupposes agreement with Enlightenment concepts and all that nasty business unleashed by the French Revolution. Chronicles dares ask the question “What if they’re wrong?” and quite often posits the statement “Actually, they are wrong!” which then opens the door to truly considering, well, all the aspects of society; this even though Chronicles rather humbly subtitles itself ‘A Magazine of American Culture’.
The August 2006 edition highlights the convergence between socialism and capitalism in our society and contains much of interest. However we will provide you with only a few good snippets from Thomas Fleming’s piece, ‘Socialism is Theft’.
[…] I remember my astonishment, in the 1980’s, meeting college students who were already talking about which corporations offered the best retirement plans. At that age, I did not imagine I would live to see 25 – and the way I was living more than justified such skepticism. Girls and Greek poetry were my principal inspirations, and Greek still brings pleasure. When a young male is thinking about retirement at the age of 20, he has already given up all hope of ever becoming a man. […]
‘We are all socialists now,’ as Sir William Harcourt observed over a century ago, and nothing has so contributed to the socialist mentality of modern life as the disappearance of private property, not only as reality but even as an ideal. American mobility, combined with the frenetic hallucination that ‘ending is better than mending,’ has detached Americans, in particular, from local roots. These days, a home is not the place in which your father was born or your grandfather died; homes are sold by the dozens by realtos who are ever eager to help you move up. If a ‘home’ is nothing more than an investment, it is hard to blame the politicians for thinking they could turn your house and lot into a more socially productive investment by selling it to developers. […]
The abuse of eminent domain is only a minor symptom of a much deeper malaise. Our rights of possession are contingent on the power of government at every level to tax property and, if taxes are not paid within a specified period of time, to confiscate it and sell it to the highest bidder. For most of us, this power does not represent an imminent danger, but it is symbolic of our dependency on government. […]
Whatever they may earn, working stiffs who depend for their very existence on government agencies and corporations larger than most nation-states are a far cry from the confident and assured citizens of the old America. The old Americans were men and women few government lackeys wished to provoke. Today, we seem to live at the behest of powerful and impersonal forces. At best, we are their loyal (and timid) retainers.
Is this result – the weakening of our character – intentional? I do not know, but the motives of politicians are always suspect. The most successful lie put forth by neoconservatives is the so-called law of unintended consequences, which would have us believe that the architects of centralized state education, the New Deal, and the Great Society did not realize that the consequence of taking control of schooling might be to transfer authority from families and communities to state and federal bureaucracies, and they never imagined that, in paying people to do nothing, they would not only discourage the necessary habits of work and thrift but undermine the self-reliance and initiative that supposedly characterized the true American. This same political class, we are called upon to believe, had absolutely no idea that the 1965 Immigration Act would dramatically alter the ethnic composition of the United States or that flooding the Horn of Africa with weapons would lead to war. Credat Apella iudeaus!
Socialism marches on, and, in its progress, it attracts more dedicated capitalists and free-enterprise capitalists to the cause. Planned obsolescense in appliances is good, argues one libertarian con man, because we should always be buying the new and improved model. The same argument applies to houses, wives, families, and communities. We are all caught up in Progress Fever, like the Gold Fever that sent so many foolish men to die, far away from all they loved, in California or Montana.
Economic liberty and free enterprise can be maintained only by a certain kind of human character that is created and nourished under certain specific social and cultural conditions. A farmer who farms his own land and defends it with his gun, who supervises the schooling of his children and sits on his church’s vestry, is a far cry from the deracinated consumer who switches houses every five years and pays other people to protect him. The consumer may make and spend far more money, but he does not have a clue as to the meaning of the term economic liberty, and, when times are hard, he will cry like a stuck pig for government to reach out its ever-extending arms to save him from the consequences of his cowardice and greed.
While I agree with much of what Fleming has written, here’s my problem/question: What makes him think that the modern circumstances that he describes are the logical consequences of socialism rather than capitalism? I’m not saying that it is necessarily the case; I’m just saying that it appears to me on 1st blush that they could equally be the inexorable results of the workings of capitalism.
Nick
I think Fleming’s point is that they are socialist ends achieved by capitalist means.