view_article

Beware the Socialist of the Soul

By Jim Peron

F.A. Hayek, in the Constitution of Liberty, wrote true liberalism "differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism." In fact, said Hayek, the real liberal "must more positively oppose some of the basic conceptions which most conservatives share with the socialists."

The socialist concentrates on man's material well-being. He musters all the powers of the state to impose policies which he believes will improve that well being. The conservative concentrates on man's moral well-being (or his spiritual values) and he musters all the powers of the state to impose policies on people which he believes will improve that aspect of man's character. Both the socialist and the conservative believe in using the coercive powers of government though for slightly differing ends. The socialist appeals to compassion while the conservative appeals to morality.

They are both, to a degree, socialists. The Left Socialist uses state power for material well being while the Right Socialist uses it for spiritual purposes. Both are guilty of the same error. They each believe that liberalism is deficient in creating a society that will support such values. Each assumes that unwillingness to use state power to achieve such goals means that the liberal opposes the goals.

Bastiat wrote: "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all." "We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

Bastiat notes the real difference between Left and Right socialists. He said: "we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organisation, not natural organisation. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprives persons of individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence."

Having dealt with the Left socialist in the past (see the January issue, p. 2) I'll turn my attention mainly to the socialists of the soul: the conservatives. The conservative wants the state to constrain human action but not merely from those actions which violate the rights of others. He also wants a state that imposes some set of moral values and protects the individual from himself. Where the Left wishes to free action but collectivises consequences the Right socialist wants to collectivise actions while allowing the individual to bear all consequences.

The Left socialist allows an individual the freedom to be promiscuous sexually and then bails them out if they have children they can't care for or come down with a sexually transmitted disease. The Right socialist would keep such promiscuity illegal, thus making the action centrally planned, but would then impose all consequences on the individual. The liberal, in comparison, says that when it comes to morality actions and consequences must be linked at all times. Otherwise people act under a set of perverse incentives. (We will have more on this in a future issue.)

The socialist of the soul is incapable of living in a society where people hold moral values not in tune with his own. Hayek says of him: "The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. [But].... he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike."

But the conservative is simply incapable of living in a society where others are allowed to disagree with him. It's not merely a question of preventing people from committing crimes either. On that liberalism is clear - all transgressions of the life, liberty and property of others is forbidden. But the socialist of the soul can't thrive when others are allowed freedom. His own happiness depends on imposing his will on others. He feels personally assaulted if others are allowed to live by values of which he disapproves. In fact such socialists of the soul will often justify using state violence against peaceful individuals merely because such individuals offend them by their very existence.

The socialist of the soul may have a sabbath day which he reveres and holds holy. But when others hold a different sabbath (or God forbid, none at all) the socialist of the soul is vexed. The existence of gay men and women he finds offensive and prefers that such people be kept hidden if not made criminal and punishable by imprisonment. Publications which he won't read because they offend his moral virtues he demands be made illegal for all. Calls for greater censorship will almost always attract his support. Social diversity is anathema to him. Like every collectivist he wants to destroy individualism in favour of some predetermined social mould which he himself has fashioned. He does firmly want the freedom to live according to his values but he wants everyone else to be free to live according to his values as well.

Hayek argued that to "live and work successfully with others" requires a society where competing value systems can exist side by side. "It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideas are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservativism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may explain why it seems to be so much easier for a repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal."

The socialist of the soul is not a steadfast ally against statism. He can't be. He shares too many values with the materialistic socialist. For him opposition to "too much government control is not a matter of principle but is concerned with the particular aims of government...." (Hayek)

The conservative collectivist is always looking backwards. The best, for him, is always in the past. He regularly laments how the world around him is going to hell. His main goal is the preservation of the past. Change is to be shunned. Hayek argues this means that conservatism "by its very nature...cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving." It merely tries to prevent change. The fate of conservativism is "to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing."

For centuries conservatism dominated Europe and European cultures. But the Enlightenment brought about challenges which conservatives could not meet. Liberalism, said Murray Rothbard, arose in opposition to conservativism. It "brought to the Western world not only liberty, the prospect of peace, and the rising living standards of an industrial society, but above all, it brought hope, a hope in ever-greater progress that lifted the mass of mankind out of it's age-old sinkhole of stagnation and despair."

Rothbard explained: "Soon there developed in Western Europe two great political ideologies, centered around the this new revolutionary phenomenon: one was liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity; the other was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order. Since liberalism admittedly had reason on its side the Conservative darkened the ideological atmosphere with obscurantist calls for romanticism, tradition, theocracy, and irrationalism. Political ideologies were polarized with liberalism on the extreme "left" and conservatism on the extreme "right" of the ideological spectrum." [Note: This explains why liberals like Bastiat sat on the Left of the French legislative assembly.]

The arrival of socialism complicated matters. The socialist attempted to achieve the goals of liberalism by using conservative means. Writes Rothbard: "Socialism, like liberalism and against conservativism, accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards for the masses, and an end to theocracy and war; but it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible, conservative means: statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc."

The two varieties of socialists ended up frequently in bed together. The radical nature of classical liberalism scared both of them. The each wanted to embrace something of the past: the conservative embraced both the old goals and the old means while the socialist, though embracing liberal goals, still clung to conservative means. Socialism was thus a compromise between the two - an attempt to achieve liberal ends while still clinging to old conservative values. Instead of being a "radical" movement socialism was reactionary.

Professor E. Harris Harbison, of Princeton, said:

The truly 'radical' movement of the later medieval and early modern period was the growth of economic individualism, not the appearance of a few communistic books, sects, and communities. Against the background of nineteenth century individualism, 'radical' is today almost synonymous with 'socialist' or 'communist'. ...It is essential to the understanding of utopian socialism to remember that when it first appeared in European history as a fairly consistent theory, it was very largely a reactionary protest against a new, 'progressive' and poorly understood economic movement, an appeal to turn the clock backward.

Walter Lippman concurred, "...I insist that collectivism, which replaces the free market by coercive centralized authority, is reactionary in the exact sense of the word."

Socialism was formulated in the first half of the 19th century, barely after the beneficial results of the industrial revolution were being felt by the masses. As Archibald Roosevelt said, "...school textbooks create the impression that socialistic theories arose out of the conditions brought about by the industrial revolution. This is a gross misstatement from which the left-wing has reaped tremendous political capital. The truth is that the period during which the basic socialist tenets were fashioned was a period when society was throwing off the chains of medievalism."

In reaction social reform movements began to be formed. Max Beer, in his General History of Socialism and Social Struggles, said these movements advocated "a modernized medieval order." They looked at the change and found it frightening, they:

...could not accept ideas and demands and economic practices which were based on individual freedom of judgment and of action - without regard to the Church, the State, and the community, and placed egoism and self-interest before subordination, commonality, and social solidarity. The modern era seemed to them to be built on quicksand, to be chaos, anarchy, or an utterly unmoral and godless outburst of intellectual and economic forces, which must inevitably lead to acute social antagonisms, to extremes of wealth and poverty, and to an universal upheaval. In this frame of mind, the Middle Ages, with its firm order in church, economic, and social life, its faith in God, its feudal tenures, its cloisters, its autonomous associations and its guilds appeared to these thinkers like a well-compacted building....

W.D.P. Bliss, a founding father of American socialism, in an article for the left-wing New Encyclopedia of Social Reform, spoke glowingly of the guild system of medieval Europe. He admitted: "This was paternal. Often socialistic in the extreme. It was as we have seen cruel - but it was with a just cruelty." Thomas Davidson, a founder of the British Fabian Society, late in life, looked back on his theories and concluded: "Historically, nations have been great, I believe, in proportion as they have developed individualism on a basis of private property...If socialism once realized should prove abortive, and throw power and wealth into the hands of a class, that class would be able to maintain itself against all opposition, just as the feudal chiefs did for so long. Feudalism was socialism; that is often forgotten."

Faith and Freedom, by Barbara Ward, argues that modern socialism is in fact a return to medieval feudalism, something which she does not oppose. The "welfare state is, socially, a great advance on the old 'divine right of property holders'. In a sense, it represents a return to Europe's older tradition, that property is a trust as well as a right." She also said: "It is in Christian teaching that the social duties of property owners have been most constantly underlined. The organization of medieval economic life tended toward the cooperative form of guild and corporation." Ward notes that after the rise of classical liberalism, or what she calls "the interregnum of absolute individualism and absolute property rights, the industrial process itself has reimposed a cooperative form on modern business." Socialism was in fact a conservative counter-revolution against classical liberalism. It was never an advance forward but a march into the past.

---

Jim Peron is the Executive Director of the Institute for Liberal Values, the editor of the book The Liberal Tide, and the author of the forthcoming book 'The Road Not Taken: Resolving the Crisis on the Roads.'