Exploratory Essay

When Karl Marx first outlined the basis of socialism in his manifesto, the ideas he explained were outrageous for the period and took humanity by surprise.  The world had never operated in such a way that ethics and morality were seemingly at the forefront of society rather than the pursuit of power and wealth.  The idea was astonishing.  I was always taught by my parents and teachers that under the basis of Marx, “socialism simply does not work.”  Historically, yes, complete socialism like Marx outlined does not operate well in the long run and unfortunately, people are inherently evil which leads to the immense corruption that is apparent in countries that have attempted the practice and system of socialism.  As socialism edges ever closer to the American people, more and more United States citizens and immigrants are under the impression that socialism can improve lives and better everyone, especially the middle and lower class.  However, there is still another half of the country that believes capitalism is the superior system in comparison due to the economical aspect and the ability of anyone to gain wealth through hard work, which is the root of the American Dream.

When I first began my research, I thought it would be wise to begin by looking at the main source of the argument itself: Marx and Engels’ proposal for socialism: Manifesto of the Communist Party.  The work was published in 1848 and was the first time any such idea was proposed to the world for a while since the 1516 work, Utopia, by Thomas More which outlined a perfect island society.  Marx’s literature makes a heavy emphasis on bringing the proletarians to prominence.  Proletarians being the working class, Marx was valid in searching for a way to bring the average person to power over himself rather than the upper classes who did not care for him.  The upper classes, which Marx saw as greedy and working in the best interests of themselves alone, were to be taxed heavily for their earnings and give up their fortunes for the good of everyone and fostering a system based on ethical morality and the framework that we have all come to know as socialism.  The global policy would need to change, the sense of individuality would diminish in favor of a collective team, and humanity would form a bond together.  This is what Karl Marx proposes and promises to those who follow his teaching.  Not a bad idea, right?  Taxing the rich more because they make more, giving everyone the same things, essentially making us equal; these are all things that the masses of society would find to be good and beneficial.

Following this short bit of research, I decided to put my ideas to the test: by reading anti-Marxist literature and listening to the educated opinions of others.  There are a plethora of snippets to choose from including entire books speaking against the ethical parts of socialism, the economical aspect, and the societal effects of accepting such a system as socialism.  The conclusion of all of them is that yes, it could maybe work on paper, but never in a fully operating society.  There are too many turning cogs for socialism to work, regardless of whether humans are inherently good or evil.  I found that through reading manuscripts like “The Road to Serfdom” by Hayek and “Karl Marx and the Close of his System” by Eugen von Bohn-Bawerk, that there is an even split between what people see humanity as being and capable of.  Hayek says, “Probably it is true enough that the great majority are rarely capable of thinking independently, that on most questions they accept views which they find ready-made, and that they will be equally content if born or coaxed into one set of beliefs or another” (55).

In the eyes of conservatives, and what I was always told, people are bad, hence there is religion in place so that we can repent to God.  The more liberal take is much less God-centered and believes that humans are good, and a few have been led astray by upbringing or other such circumstances.  I am of the conservative belief and do not find humans to be nice at heart due to hidden intentions and motive that does not reach the surface of conversation.  People are not typically kind to one another unless we are attempting to make an acquaintance or get ahead of the curve somehow.  Just from my knowledge, there is always a driving factor when it comes to people.  Be it fame, money, recognition, or even God, there is always a reason someone is being nice to someone or something at that time.  This of course can be combatted by the liberal thought that all humans are born good and brought up in such a way that they learn to act that way. However, that goes much beyond the confines of the “simple” discussion of socialism’s effects on the American people, who are historically not incredibly well known for taking orders well, especially from the central government.

Another point I think about heavily: America is not ready for socialism.  And neither is the rest of the world.  United States politicians will claim to be working toward having socialism like the quote “successful European countries” such as Finland and Norway who at the core are not actually socialist, it should be added.  In present America, lawmakers such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez propose the famed systems in which socialism has claimed to be set in place, but the free market still exists for trade with the rest of the world.  I found this interesting as I continued to dig farther into the current conception of socialism.

The conservative view of the free market, which opposes the centrally planned market that socialism presents, is referred to as a basis of democracy.  Products that are wanted by people are chosen over the ones that are not, causing those that sell wanted products to get ahead in sales and overall wealth.  “Our freedom of choice in a competitive society rests on the fact that, if one person refuses to satisfy our wishes, we can turn to another” (Hayek 93).  Many are not exacted in this idea that the best survives, a theory like natural selection that deems only the worthy organisms of populous can continue their heritage due to evolutionary traits.  Companies that can adapt to the changing politico-social climate of their consumers can grow.  A system such as capitalism also creates powers that are much stronger than the government, an issue that is raised with the population who rely on the centralized government for financial aid and general support.  When socialists approach the concept of capitalism, they are more than willing to fight the powers that be, in their minds: the fat men in gaudy suits on the top floor of the Empire State Building calling the shots upon their monopolies.   However, in another book I read, A Reflection on the Failure of Socialism, the author shares this:

It seems obvious to me now – though I have been slow, I must say, in coming to the conclusion – that the institution of private property is one of the main things that have given man that limited amount of free-and-equalness that Marx hoped to render infinite by abolishing this institution. Strangely enough, Marx was the first to see this. He is the one who informed us, looking backward, that the evolution of private capitalism with its free-market had been a precondition for the evolution of all our democratic freedoms. It never occurred to him, looking forward, that if this was so, these other freedoms might disappear with the abolition of the free market. (107)

An agonizing quote against the prospect of losing freedoms, the author, Max Eastman, shows that we as humans would lose individuality in pursuit of a centralized economy.

With all this being said, I was incredibly interested in seeing more of the reasoning other people had for supporting Marxist ideology.  I have approached my friends who are in support of socialism, and many of them state that it is the most ethical system that benefits everyone, giving hope to the masses, and provides resources to those who need it most.  Under the socialist structure, all people’s needs are met.  They referred me to a few pro-socialist texts like Das Kapital from Karl Marx and The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin.

Upon reading these texts, I was shocked by the amount of passion that goes into the writings.  Das Kapital is extremely dense, making it a difficult read for the faint of heart and passionless student.  It was also written by Marx, so the style is much the same, although it is more attuned to the economics than even the communist manifesto, rooted in the belief of valuing labor over money.  This is not a bad approach either.  Putting the workers first should be at the forefront of any employer and hard work should be rewarded with a higher pay for more demanding work, which is somewhat of Marx’s belief.  The issue that arose as I read was that things would be priced in a wonky manner with nothing seeming to add up or compare prices.

Peter Kropotkin clears that up in his The Conquest of Bread.  It is anarcho-communist, meaning it revolves around the abolition of the state, private property, and instead turns to a communal system of economics where people are equals.  It is difficult to say no to a system of no authority, although it does not offer any hierarchy or organization.  Kropotkin makes an effort to base his argument on the premise that humans are inherently good.  Basically, all things that are bad in this world are due to the current capitalistic system.  Without that, we could be in a utopia.

Overall, socialism still does not work according to the sources I found and researched.  I am eager to learn more on the subject, and plan on doing so.  The teachings of Austrian economists ring true to the bell of humans being inherently bad, whereas the liberals have the hopeful outlook that humans are the opposite and are born kind.  I intend to continue my reading into the philosophical aspect of socialism and how it affects the world when it is implemented.  The history behind socialism would also be beneficial to fully understanding it.

Help Received: None; Ryan H. O’Connor 5/4/21

Works Cited

Eastman, Max. Reflections on the Failure of Socialism. New York, The Devin-Adair Company, 1955.

Hayek, Friedrich A.  The Road to Serfdom. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1956.

Hilferding, Rudolph. Bohm-Bawerk’s Criticism of Marx. New York, Augustis M. Kelley, 1966.

Von Bohm-Bawerk, Eugen.  Karl Marx and the Close of his System. New York, Augustis M. Kelley, 1966.

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Penguin Books, 2011. Print.

Marx, Karl, 1818-1883. Das Kapital, a Critique of Political Economy. Chicago :H. Regnery, 1959.

Kropotkin, Peter A, and Charles Weigl. The Conquest of Bread. Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2008. Print.