10. The Greatest Myth

CHAPTER 10 THE GREATEST MYTH Let us again consider the political format of socialism. Socialism-which is at its roots a system of sharing the wealth and therefore is an economic theory - when combined with a political instrument becomes a device for compulsory redistribution of wealth. It is the word COMPULSORY which must now come under examination. The modern socialist, beginning about the time of Godwin, was no longer content to dream of the day when life could 204 - THIS BREAD IS MINE be transformed to meet equalitarian wishes. Since for hun dreds of years the dream of socialism had been advocated philosophically and religiously, without noticeable results, something more immediate and drastic was deemed essential to twist creation into a new shape more consonant with uni versality and equality. The government was called into play to provide the compulsion hitherto lacking. Not by Association of Persons We have already reviewed Marx and the Fabians as to the methods advocated since 1842. What we must do is to plunge more deeply into the definition so that we can recog nize the harmful (compulsive) brand of socialism without recourse to the use of names and the device of discovering the malady by the association of persons.

It may be a shortcut to the discovery of socialist spheres of influence to be able to prove that Marx was a socialist, that Jones teaches Marxism and that Smith, who attended Jones' class, must therefore be a Marxist. The difficulty here THE GREATEST MYTH - 205 is that the assumption is a non-sequitur. Smith may have at tended Jones' classes, but may have done so in order to understand what he completely opposes. And, likewise, Jones, despite the fact that he may teach Marxism, may do so in an honest and sincere manner which falls short of either propa ganda or endorsement. What is essential is the isolation of the germ itself, regardless of the names of the persons who carry it. This is mandatory if· individualism is to survive. There are two phases to compulsive socialism. These two phases have been set ·forth most succinctly by Marx, who said: "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." Clearly, phase one deals with the taking ac cording to ability; phase two, with the granting according to need. Thus, socialism begins with forceful extraction of wealth from those who have wealth, and the cycle is completed when the wealth is redistributed and finds its way into the hands of others who apparently are in need.

In phase one there are several indices which may be helpful to characterize a particular program as being social206-THIS BREAD IS MINE ist in nature. For example, the taking is supposed to involve those who have. Also, since we are now concerned with com pulsive taking, there must be an act of force in which the taking is brought about. This means that an unnamed party must exist in the equation to bring off the theft. Certainly, there would be few with "ability" who would voluntarily part with what they have. The unnamed party is inevitably the government or some agency which is endowed with or usurps the functions of government. Therefore, a certain guide to this phase of socialism is the intrusion of the government or a similarly endowed agency which proposes to take from those who have "ability." As to a discovery of socialism by deciding who has ability, the route is clouded with obstacles. Everyone has ability of one sort or another. And since the taking does not have to be in money, but can consist of goods, services or even in a loss of effi ciency under harassment, it is difficult,· if not impossible, to characterize a program as socialistic simply on the basis of the temporary financial ratings of those from whom someTHE GREATEST MYTH-207 thing is being taken. As a matter of fact, a sales tax, which is assessed against any item of merchandise which changes hands, could be a tax levied principally against persons of small means, yet it could still be a device to redistribute wealth.

This is especially true when such programs as govern ment unemployment insurance, social security and old age benefits are part of a wide front of redistribution. Those em ployed, regardless of the size of their wages, are inevitably better off than those unemployed. Hence, the worker earning even as little as $100 per year is better off than an unemployed person. Consequently, to take something from the employed worker is to take from one who has ability greater than the ability shown by the non-worker. Consider, too, government programs which promote health, education and welfare. Obviously, it is consonant with so cialism for those having health to share something with those who are less healthy, even if the sharing is translated into a tax program, and expressed in terms of money. Those without 208 - THIS BREAD IS· MINE education become beneficiaries under-socialism. And those lacking in anything else, whatever it may be, will always find themselves a little lower on the economic ladder in relation to this lack than those who may have other lacks in other fields.

Thus, in some respects, each of us is superior to someone else, and in that respect the target of the socialist leveler. It is not too harsh to say that all programs adopted by any government which tax special groups, which tax on a gradu ated scale, or which tax universally, are in the process of taking wealth from those with ability. In recent days in these United States, the mere ability to pay a tax, however out rageous or unjust it might be, is virtually a signal for the tax to be levied and collected. Ability to pay is considered the major. key. But ability to pay ties directly into the Marxian theme and can unquestionably be traced to socialist thinking. Socialist Giving Let us return to this matter of taking a little later and consider new the matter of giving to those who are in need.

THE GREATEST MYTH - 209 Once more we note a pair of clues which will help us discover socialism in action. The first is that what is to be given is to go to those who are in need. The second is that the giving is to be accomplished by an unnamed third party which is able to determine the extent and the ·urgency of the need. Once more, the government is indicated in this second case. Only a government could pretend to such universal omnipotence as to undertake such an impossible feat. But, as in the prior case, we will have difficulty in dis covering just who are those in need. Just as every human being has some ability, so every human being is in need. Abilities and needs do not appear to be in balance in the in dividual for regardless of the financial condition of the indi vidual, his needs will far outrun his abilities. All of us want more than we have, whether we are paupers or millionaires.

So once again we are baffled if we attempt to trace the so cialist germ simply by assuming that only when a government gives money to the poor, is socialism. operative.

210 - THIS BREAD IS MINE An example of the corollary of this is found readily in the farm subsidy program. By far and away the largest checks in the government's soil conservation program are being hand ed to large and prosperous firms and agricultural operators. Few would deny the socialistic implications. Clearly, in this case the government is sharing the taxes it has collected from hordes of small wage earners .with large and wealthy land owners and operators. Socialism is not simply a process of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. It is a process of taking from those with ability (everyone) and redistributing on some basis which is politically advantageous to those in need (everyone). It may be argued that the government gives only to the poor. But we have disproved that above by showing, for ex ample, the farm soil bank program in operation which rewards persons of wealth.

It may also be argued that those who are poor, who do receive from the government, are not making a contribution for their own government dole. But this can readily be disTHE GREATEST MYTH - 211 proved if we understand the enormous variations in the govern ment's program of collecting taxes. All of us are consumers. We cannot stay alive without eating food, wearing clothing and living in some kind of shelter. There is no longer such a thing as untaxed food, untaxed clothing, or untaxed shelter. And those who consume these goods or use these services are paying taxes, even if all the money they employ in the process consists of governmental largesse. Thus, even the poorest of us is paying for our· subsidy in whole or in part. And if it is only in. part, the excess which we receive via the government, over and above our own contributions through taxes, is more than offset by the reduction in productive energy which is meanwhile being experienced by all others who are directly making up the difference. There is no such thing as something for nothing. All of us pay for what we get, either directly or indirectly, by the loss in productive energy of others which might otherwise provide services or products at lower prices from which each of us could benefit.

There are two factors here which require comment. It should be noted that for this unwanted and unnecessary (to 212 - THIS BREAD IS MINE all but socialists) service, the government collects and keeps an enormous brokerage fee. Thus, in the process of taking from some to give to others, the net result is a diminution of the original wealth which is held in private hands. Here, the prime objective of socialism is served. It is the aim of the socialist, you will recall, to eliminate private ownership. Any sum of money, any kind of property, which is taken from some under any excuse whatsoever and which remains in government hands, furthers the socialist goal. And when suf ficient of wealth and property has been taken from the private and original owners so that control of the uses of that wealth and property is transferred to thQ government, even though title remains in the possession of the rightful owners, then the socialist aim is achieved.

Socialist Taking The second point to which our attention should be direct ed is this. Most persons are so entranced with the idea of the giving phase· of socialism that they fail to recognize a socialist THE GREATEST MYTH - 213 coup in the taking stages. This makes socialism inordinately difficult to recognize until the transaction is completed. Many people recognize that socialism is the redistribution of wealth. What most seem unable to recognize is .that no redistribution can occur until the prior collection has been completed. Thus, even well-informed individualists are placed at a tremendous disadvantage. They inveigh heartily against the sharing of wealth which almost all persons enjoy if they happen to be classed with a needy group at a given moment, but they are mute and tongue-tied at the mass theft which precedes any such sharing and which no one enjoys when he happens to be a part of the mass that is being plundered.

We think of socialism as a "share-the-wealth" scheme. We should begin to recognize it as a "take-the-wealth" scheme. So the antisocialist individual wears the mantle of the man ~ho is trying to do away with Santa Claus. And the socialist wears the mantle of the one who is seeking to provide untold benefits to humanity. The opposite is the truth. The individual who wishes to preserve the rights of everyone to 214-THIS BREAD IS MINE his own property is seeking to bestow untold benefits, and the socialist who is trying to plunder the world is the man who is in the process of destroying the overflowing cornu copia provided by a free market. So in the result to be experienced, the individualist is always working from the tail end of the tragedy, trying to regain ground that has been lost. He is inevitably on the de fensive so long as he does not oppose the plundering until it has been done. Then, he enters the arena as an opponent of the popular distribution. He comes too late to oppose the unpopular predation.

Keeping in mind the taking phase of socialism, there is a very serious widespread misunderstanding respecting govern ment's role in the operation. This misunderstanding produces two fallacies. One is that a democratic form of government is a safeguard against socialism. The other, more prevalent elsewhere than in these United States, is that a strong man - an aristocrat, an autocrat or a monarch - can defeat so cialism. Both of these ideas are false. Socialism, compulsive THE GREATEST MYTH-215 and harmful, is aided and abetted by ANY KIND of government. If it is remembered that socialism is an economic theory respecting a sharing of wealth, and that it is made possible by governmental interference in the economy, the misunder standing should be dispelled. It makes no difference whether the government has the form of a dictatorship, an oligarchy, a democracy, a republic, a theocracy, a monarchy, a plutocracy, or any possible combination of these or other forms. When a government taxes some for the benefit of all; when it taxes all for the benefit of some; when it attempts to provide some thing that the people "need," socialism is inherent.

So it must be asked if it is possible to have a government which is non-socialistic in character. And the answer is that it is not possible. All governments tend to move toward socialism. The larger and more vigorous they become, the more surely are they practicing socialism.

216 - THIS BREAD IS MINE This is undoubtedly the most difficult point for many to grasp. Let us explore this idea in the ensuing pages. And let us also recall that whereas all governments in all of history have practiced socialism to some degree, it remained for the advent of the 19th and 20th centuries before governmental policy consciously and deliberately espoused the socialist cause.