"Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
The idea that something is true or untrue depends on our perspective has been reprehensible to me. As a Christian conservative, I love the idea of universal general truths, and I abhor concepts such as moral relativism. The constants of gravity does not change based on current societal trends. The immorality of murder cannot be removed by popular vote. Jumping into a volcano is a bad idea. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. The United States declared independence from England in 1776. USC beat Texas in a double-overtime football game at the Coliseum 27-24 in 2017.
These facts do not require a particular perspective, or that the observer have certain feelings. They are objectively true.
In my youth, as I studied religion, politics, history, and science, I became more convinced of the importance of these universal truths. One of the natural applications of this was the evil of socialism.
The idea that the government should be able to take property, without any due process, from some citizens, and give it to other citizens, is legalized theft. I have always been opposed to the concept that any person is entitled to the property of others. The old Marx saying from each according to his ability, to each according to his need may seem appealing in terms of helping the poor, but attributing an entitlement to unearned goods and services without providing incentives to work, produce, and earn is hazardous at best, and at worst, a major contributor to the murder, imprisonment, and tyranny seen in communist nations in the 20th century.
In the past couple years, socialism has seen a resurgence in American politics, only this time, accompanied by the ultimately meaningless adjective "democratic." Democratic socialism is marketed with the same promises that leftist politicians have made for decades including health care and education, and with the indication that these things can be made affordable by taxing "the rich" (a group that is rarely defined specifically, and when defined, could not produce enough revenue to purchase all the promised services, even if taxed at a rate of 100%).
In the past couple years, I have struggled to understand how so many young people could get so excited about such a bad, old idea.
Of course, I saw the simplistic memes that described everything government did as "socialism." Memes with clever captions told me that I drove on socialized roads or that I was protected by socialized fire departments and police departments, but universal health care and universal education was something else entirely. Of course, conservative meme producers were quick to point out how disingenuous promises of "free stuff" are. They could point to times before any income tax and demonstrate that society managed to function relatively well without socialized services. The libertarian sentiment"taxation is theft" has become a memorable slogan, even though it is also simplistic.
People on the left have frequently pointed to corrupt corporate interests (some of which, to their credit, were legitimately bad). Some of their pundits have suggested that capitalism itself was the culprit... that in all cases, it promoted greed... an unfair generalization.
People on the right hosted discussions where they described socialism as evil... not just an unsustainable idea, but actually evil, and in every case.
While in the past, the universal absolute statement would have immediately appealed to me, now something seems off about the assessment. Thinking about the concept led me to realize that the issue was more complicated than I had initially thought. Perhaps my perspective was giving me a simplistic view of these socialist ideas, and that I could benefit from the counsel of Obi-Wan.
This sort of introspection is rarely easy. No one likes being wrong, and questioning the philosophies that have shaped perspective could lead to uncomfortable places. Societies have taxed their citizens by force, and have used the generated revenue to do various things (including those that I believe are necessary). How could it be acceptable to compel participation for public good in some cases and not others? Was it possible that I had already unconsciously given my approval for socialism? How could this compulsion be balanced with the idea that humans have basic freedoms?
In the end, Obi-Wan was right. The anti-socialist philosophy to which I had clung for most of my life depended greatly on my own point of view.
There is a different point of view... a context... in which socialism works. I do not mean just some universal services that require common funding such as the military, but an actual case in which people who produce little or nothing should be entitled to the income of others who produce and earn based on their individual production.
This context is called family. Most particularly, a family with children.
A parent, particularly a father, is obligated to work to produce not only for themselves, but for children who produce little or nothing. A newborn baby, for example, will incur numerous expenses, and in return will produce large quantities of dirty diapers and sleep deprivation. Toddlers are experts at turning clean clothing into dirty laundry, clean dishes into dirty dishes, and small disappointments into crises worthy of glass-shattering screeching, but of course, none of these skills are particularly marketable. Older children may be able to help more, but certainly not enough to offset the costs of larger meals and bigger clothing sizes for their growing bodies. Regardless of the inability of children to provide in meaningful ways, a parent who does not impart of their substance to provide food, clothing, and other tangible necessities (in addition to the emotional necessities) is criminally negligent, and in the worst case, should be compelled to provide these things.
While children do not have the capacity to fully support the financial costs of the family, they do have an obligation to help assist in basic tasks of which they are capable. It is appropriate for parents to require their children to do chores, to tidy up after themselves, and to help one another, all without any additional compensation. In the context of a household, the idea from each according to his ability, to each according to his need is actually a good concept. Everyone pitches in, developing selfless motivations, to assist one another to be successful.
The goal of this implementation of socialism is to help children to become capable of production, so that when they are old enough to be free and independent, they will have received the necessary preparation.
That means that, in order for socialism to function in this context, the following things are necessary:
- The non-producers consent to the producers presiding over them
- The producers train the non-producers to become productive (as apprentices)
- The producers have close ties to the non-producers for whom they are obligated to provide
- The non-producers have natural incentives to become producers
This also means that in larger contexts, such as the context of the United States federal government, this model cannot work:
- There is too much grey area regarding who is or is not producing and who should preside
- Apprenticeship is not practical without cooperation to that end between the non-producer and the producer
- There are no natural ties to relate non-producers to producers, which means bureaucracies are needed to assess tiers of production, bind individuals in different tiers to one another, facilitate transfers of goods and services, and to enforce compliance
- There is not any significant incentive for any tier to produce more or to improve
The other important factor that helps socialistic practices work in a family setting is love. Mothers and fathers have natural tendencies to care for their children. This means that, even in cases when a child cannot become a producer (e.g. children with mental and physical disabilities), there is still a motivation in parents to care for their children. While there may be exceptions, most people would not characterize interactions with bureaucracy as "loving."
Elder Dale G. Renlund shared that "the greater the distance between the giver and the receiver, the more the receiver develops a sense of entitlement." (April 2016 General Conference). This idea highlights the most significant aspect of determining the success of socialistic practices: scale.
On a family scale, individuals are obligated to cooperate in love and respect for the benefit of all. On a neighborhood scale, families should have a desire to help and serve one another, but not necessarily provide for every need. On a city scale, resources such as police, fire departments, or sanitation should be shared. On the state scale, highways, prisons, and other resources should be pooled. On a national scale, the scope decreases to things that cannot be individually applied such as treaties with other nations, currency management, and defense. On a global scale, nothing is obligated.
This is not to say that individuals or private foundations cannot voluntarily take up causes on a larger scale... it is to say that these contributions must remain voluntary. A person who would rather contribute to the Prevent Cancer Foundation than MSF or the Red Cross should be able to do so.
Efforts to compel participation in socialism on large scales tend to have success with one of two properties:
- The socialistic practices have limited success in some areas while they can still be propped up by the wealth generation of capitalism (which is seen with some Nordic nations)
- The socialistic practices have limited success when the government kills and/or imprisons anyone who dissents (which could be seen in Venezuela, North Korea, the USSR, and Nazi Germany)
In either case, the consolidation of power necessary to compel participation is prone to corruption and mismanagement. I do not like the idea of Congressional Leader Nancy Pelosi making health care decisions any more than I imagine the American left loves the thought of President Donald Trump making their health care decisions. Additionally, the successes of these systems are unsustainable as capitalistic wealth creation is drained away.
Many proponents of socialism have their sights set on alleviating poverty on grand scales, but ultimately, individuals ought to do what they are able to make life better in their immediate vicinity. As noble as it may be to help everyone in the world, it might be smarter to look from a closer point of view. Take care of yourself and your family first. As you are able, help your neighbors. Remember the counsel of Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf, and "Lift where you stand."
The more people give to help their own families, the better off everyone will be.
