Socialism and Individual Freedom
Through an analysis of socialism one finds that the two forms of socialism are different in their developments but that the basis of both is practically identical. Therefore these comments apply to both Rational Socialism and Marxian Socialism. In today's time, with the example of 70 years of socialism in the Soviet Union, the decades of oppression in Eastern Europe and the recent events in Tienanmen Square, it is hard to believe that socialism's link to Classical Liberalism is its promise of individual freedom. But Marx's description of what socialism would be clearly stated that it would offer complete individual freedom. It is easy to forget that this was originally his goal. (By the way, that's why so many college professors are infatuated with socialism; they read only what Marx thought and they ignore the practical considerations of what Marxism actually created.)
The freedom Marx thought socialism would create would be the result of the government's complete control of society. He came to this paradoxical conclusion, that complete government control can bring freedom, because of the development of a new view of human nature which was drastically different from the view of human nature on which Classical Liberalism is based. Classical Liberalism borrowed its view of human nature from the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that people were largely self-interested, that there were different elements in each individual which combined to form his or her internal character and personality. These elements were not always going in the same direction, so there were conflicting drives within people, and these different elements were not always pure; the Greeks maintained that there were baser elements in human beings which could cause people to lead unjust lives. The Classical Liberals based their theories of government on this view of human nature, that people were self-interested and contained conflicting drives, some good and some bad. They realized that human beings were not perfect (as demonstrated by Congress every day).
By the 1800's, however, a new, opposing view of human nature began to develop. This view, held by the socialists, also maintained that there was an inherent human nature, but with a fundamental difference: it maintained that human nature was all pure, that people were naturally good. The source of evil was not the conflicting internal drives of human beings, but rather the environment. Every person must satisfy his physical needs, must provide adequate food and shelter from the elements, yet there was a scarcity of food and shelter. This scarcity made people grasping and greedy in an attempt to satisfy their needs, forcing them away from their inherently pure nature. According to this view, human beings became cruel reflections of a cruel environment.
With industrialism, however, the socialists felt there was the opportunity to free people from the effects of the environment. Industrialism promised the end to want, a material heaven on Earth. No longer would people be forced to be evil, because industrialism could satisfy the needs of everybody, allowing the nobility of human nature to shine through. Yet the potential of industrialism was not being used toward this purpose, was not being used to free people from the evil effects of the environment. Instead, the socialists maintained that the individuals who controlled the means of production were using it to increase their own wealth and not for the benefit of all.
This was why they believed socialism was needed. As the socialists and New Liberals saw it, the existing social system was not rational, because a rational social system would be one that extended the greatest freedom to the greatest number of people. Freedom is the ability to fulfill one's inner nature and inherent character and so find satisfaction. According to the socialist view of human nature, the need for the individual to take responsibility for meeting his or her daily needs forced people away from their characters, and so denied them freedom; the need to be responsible for oneself kept people in chains. If government, however, took responsibility for people by controlling the means of production and creating a rational social system, then the socialists believed it could insure freedom for everybody, creating a utopia in which each person was able to fulfill an inherently pure and noble inner nature.
This is how the advocates of socialism and New Liberalism would have one believe that it promotes individual freedom: by creating a rational, benevolent government which would take responsibility for people, meeting all of their wants and needs. Sound familiar? The socialists had completely reversed a central belief of the Classical Liberals. Instead of government guaranteeing freedom by doing as little as possible, they thought government could guarantee freedom by taking complete control.
Let us assess the socialist view of government. Obviously, socialism places almost all power with the government, power which Classical Liberals would not have given it. What was it that made the socialists think government would be so much more trustworthy? Why did they think the government would do what is best for us instead of best for themselves? It was because socialism had a new view of group interest to go along with the new view of human nature.
The Classical Liberals started all of their theories of government with the individual and built upon that idea. They recognized that each individual was self-interested, wanted what was best for himself and most likely to bring him satisfaction. Because there was scarcity, they assumed that individual interests would often be in conflict with one another; what was good for one person would not be good for another. Thus they believed that, with rare exceptions, there really was no true "group" interest, no one interest that everybody truly shared. Instead there was more likely to be a combination of individual, competing interests.
The socialists also believed that people were self- interested and wanted for themselves what was best for themselves and most likely to bring satisfaction. But they believed that individual interests would not come into conflict because industrialism had the potential to end scarcity if it could only be used correctly. If one were to have a rational social system to distribute the wealth of industrialism, there would be no more scarcity; everybody would be able to achieve satisfaction. Thus the socialists thought everybody would have an interest in the creation of a rational government. Individual interest and group interest would coincide, because all would have identical interests. That being the case, there was no reason to distrust government. What the people in government did to benefit themselves would benefit everybody. No longer were people in government able to use their power to advance their own interests at a cost to others, because all people had identical interests.
Now it is time to address the question of freedom and what exactly it is. Freedom in the true sense is the opportunity to decide the course of one's life, the ability of each individual to pursue his or her personal satisfaction; this is the Freedom the Founders were talking about, the freedom to pursue happiness. What these utopians were suggesting, and this thought still exists today, is that this freedom is freedom from responsibility, that individuals will have greater ability to chose their lives if government or someone else is responsible for their daily needs. Give all control over to the government and free from responsibility one can finally achieve true individualism. If one lets government take care of his needs, make his basic decisions, then he will be able to do what he wants. It doesn't work that way; people do not achieve freedom by giving up control. If government controls how one eats and where one sleeps, if it controls the basic needs of one's life, then it controls all of one's life. There is no such thing as freedom without responsibility. There is only freedom through responsibility. Essentially, these utopians have created a myth, an unattainable promise which if pursued only leads to the loss of freedom of the individual.