Some fellow at The Economist has taken me to task for my description of socialism and communism: “The difference between communism and socialism: Under communism, politics begins with a gun in your face; under socialism, politics ends with a gun in your face.”
Writes “M.S.” (am I supposed to know who this is? must confess I do not):
I have lived or spent time in several of the northern European social-democratic countries that are often described by American conservatives as “socialist”, and I don’t remember seeing anything like this going on. Let’s see, the Netherlands, Denmark, France . . . nope, don’t remember seeing The Man coming to anyone’s house with a gun to tell them to go serve the community.
Well, bully for northern Europe and journalists with anecdotes! It’s not as though gunpoint politics has no history in Europe: Wait for the next all-European war and let me know how the Dutch and the Danes do.
I, too, have lived in a socialist country, one of the hot and messy ones, and I saw plenty of gunpoint politics. Different kinds of states draw the line on violence in different places.
Never mind, for now, that there is a world of difference between having a large and expensive welfare state, such as Sweden’s, and having a socialist state, such as Venezuela’s or North Korea’s or pre-reform India’s; it’s fair enough to write that some American conservatives would call France “socialist.” They would be wrong, but they would do so. (Hey, I have some thoughts on that!) Socialist or otherwise, all states finally rest on force: You decline to participate in whatever is the Netherlands’ version of serving the community through the instrument of the state long enough, they send a guy to your house with a gun to seize your stuff or haul you off to jail; resist and there will be violence. That’s what states do, and it is not necessarily illegitimate.
The resort to violence is what makes the question of what kind of things it is legitimate for states to do an important moral concern. It seems to me perfectly reasonable to shove a gun in somebody’s face to stop him murdering, raping, or robbing. It seems to me entirely unreasonable to shove a gun in somebody’s face to extort from him money to fund a project to get monkeys high on cocaine. Those seem to me fairly reasonable distinctions. It is illegitimate for government to use force or the threat of force for projects that are not inherently public in character.
The question of how much illegitimacy a state may perpetrate before becoming generally illegitimate itself is of real interest and has been, of late, the subject of some spirited discussion between some of my colleagues here and me. (You probably can guess on which side of the fault line I stand.)
But I would like to make it clear that I am not indulging in a figure of speech: I think it’s a pretty useful heuristic: If you’re not willing to have somebody hauled off at gunpoint over the project, then it’s probably not a legitimate concern of the state.
This is the sort of talk that gives the (always well informed, excruciatingly sober, generally sensible) folks at The Economist the howling fantods, inasmuch as they seem to operate under a kind of distributed version of the divine right of kings — always asking whether the rulers rule wisely, seldom asking whether they have the right to rule at all, and never asking whether and how much we actually need them. That’s why The Economist is the in-house newsletter of The Establishment. That and those great classifieds.
UPDATE: William Saletan tosses off another response on the masturbation = socialism debate. He is having a hard time distinguishing between that which one does out of shame or pressure and that which one does out of fear of government violence. It is all social control, he argues, as though a tut-tut were a tank. In other words, he is either morally and politically sophomoric or he is being intentionally thick.
– Kevin D. Williamson is deputy managing editor of National Review and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, to be published in January.
I just went through the painful process of registering just to tell you that your heuristic is a wonderful way to ask questions about the appropriate role for government.
Good work!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStefan Molyneux did an essay on this subject a few years ago:
The Gun in the Room - External Link
I use this argument on many folks who don't see the inherent violence associated with many of the policies they support (the failed War on Drugs, prostitution, gambling, mandatory health care). I ask them how many people would they be willing to personally shoot in order to achieve their goal, or idea, of a peaceful, civil society. They always answer none. I then ask why do they advocate that the government do it on their behalf. They usually deny that it would come to that. I take them through a series of events which leads to the logical conclusion: "Pay the fine" .. "I'm not going to pay the fine" .. "Well, then we are taking you to jail" .. "I will resist going to jail" .. BANG!!
Even then, the cognitive dissonance is bewildering.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo basically the gun in your face heuristic is useful for defining the proper policies of the state as defined by Kevin D Williamson.....but wait there are 299,999,999+ others of us here. What about what we think? Some of us feel a single payer health care is very much a good idea of public policy. Kevin probably thinks they would be holding a gun to his head. Yet some of us feel we shouldn't have to pay for a patent office or a legal system. They probably think the Kevin Williamson's of the world force them to comply by threat of a gun to their heads.
Democracy is not an a' la carte matter of policy. It can never please everyone all the time but that's the expectation of individualist thinking type people unable to look past their narrow view at the broad scope of what a government must do to allow its citizens to prosper. Simplifying a position you disagree with as the equivalent of having a gun to your head is a sophomoric attempt to equate those you disagree with as Hitlers and nothing more.
The only non-authoritarian government is the one exactly and precisely and nothing more or less than what Kevin D Williamson dictates? That's the mind of a libertarian.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, Muirgeo, you can have all of the single-payer health care you and your friends want to buy for yourselves. Buy yourselves some cars that run on unicorn feathers while you're at it, and a green-jobs plan, too. You can spend all of your own money on whatever you like.
The problem is when you start extorting money from others.
Iconoclast: Is our registration that bad? Was it a pain?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse> That's the mind of a libertarian.
Beware the evil libertarians. They want to take over the government and .... leave you alone!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat article Kevin. You are one of the most accessible writers I've seen anywhere. It appears we are living in a juggernaut democracy, where the minority in power initiate force at home and abroad for all kinds of spurious reasons. Much worse than Nazis or Commies because we have a sustainable model that wears a veneer of respecatability. We all have credit scores, we all have I.P. addresses, we all know someone in the prison system for a political crime, we all learn to love the bomb which kills the innocent and the warrior alike. We accept guns in our face, battering rams through our door, drones over our head, surveillance cameras above and on every street corner, and Government and police databases compiling our every significant action.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe safety and prosperity the big government lovers provide is the same one you see in the cages of your local zoo or nature preserve.
These collectivists can't let a tiger be a tiger. The black hole inside them can only be filled when every tiger is safe from discrimination of every other tiger, when all tigers are equal in captivity and no tiger is left behind in the wild brazenly enjoying being a tiger or tigress.
The groups of remaining wild tigers will naturally form their own legitimate states and rules. Likewise, it is fully legitimate for any American who wants to, to form his own alliances and networks. What sadistic clown would demand Wyoming Ranchers, New York Homosexuals, Georgia Millionaires, Iowa Christians, Utah Polygamists, Chicago Panhandlers, Florida Prostitutes, and Washington Hippies, all conform to a national set of values, and have one common state dictated goal?
A true republic need only bind them together where they have a common interest in defense and peaceful coexistance through law.
Someone once described the Economist to me as a libertarian publication. I've read it a few times on airplanes and have always been disappointed because it seems to merely report conventional wisdom derived from reading by U.S. establishment publications. Frankly, its writing strikes me as very pretentious when it reports on U.S. news.
The Economist seems a little better when it is reporting on British, European, Indian, and other news outside of the Western Hemisphere. Who cares what the Economist has to say about the Exchequer? NRO definitely has way more American readers than the Economist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusemuirgeo proves my point. One can literally point to the gun in the room, and because they are so blinded by their ideology, will completely ignore it
Watch this, muirgeo:
The Philosophy of Liberty - External Link
After viewing it, let me know if you still believe using violence, or the threat of violence, is an appropriate way to achieve a goal. Is that your idea of a peaceful, civil society?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like your thoughts on the matter but I think the left will not be able to 'get it'. Since they always position themselves as being righteous and THE good they can't understand objections to their programs (must be racists or something).
I can get pacifists not wanting to fund the military... but they can't get me not wanting to be part of national healthcare...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs far as I know, they refer to the same economic system (public, i.e. state ownership of the means of production) but have different historical connotations.
Here are my notes:
-Socialism came to replace the word “Communism,” but meant the same thing
-Socialist parties were formed by former “communists”
-Lenin re-adopted “communism” to refer to his revolutionary means
-Distinct from the “social traitors” who preferred more peaceful means of attaining socialism
-Marx, in a letter, wrote of two stages of socialism: the lower stage and the higher stage, but did not give them names
-When critics looked at the inequalities in Stalin’s Russia, Stalin explained that the lower stage currently existed, and called it “socialism;” the higher stage, when full equality would be attained was to be called “communism”
I would recommend here to end the debate (my source):
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExternal Link
Oh no Ken you misunderstood me. I am not for a national health care policy. I believe if some one comes to my Hospital pregnant with premature twins but no ability to pay I have every right to tell her to get off my property.
I just don't like guys like you holding a gun to my head telling me I have to pay for a patent office and a judicial system.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMidas702, great post.
"What sadistic clown would demand Wyoming Ranchers, New York Homosexuals, Georgia Millionaires, Iowa Christians, Utah Polygamists, Chicago Panhandlers, Florida Prostitutes, and Washington Hippies, all conform to a national set of values, and have one common state dictated goal?"
Classic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse