Over the years, I’ve repeatedly tried to explain why socialism is a terrible system while also explaining that we should be careful not to label people as socialists if it’s more accurate to refer to them as statists, redistributionists, cronyists, or fascists.
To help illuminate this issue, here’s a four-quadrant matrix. Free markets are on the left and state planning is on the right. And small government is on the top with redistribution is on the bottom.
So it’s a very good idea to be in the top-left quadrant, hopefully close to the corner, sort of like Hong Kong and Singapore. And it’s a big mistake to be in the bottom-right quadrant, sort of like Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela.
Notice, by the way, that Denmark and Sweden are more free market than the United States (i.e., further to the left), but with much more redistribution (i.e., closer to the bottom). Which is exactly what you see when you look at the underlying data from Economic Freedom of the World.
Let’s augment our four quadrants by adding a couple of historical examples, which are colored red.
In the top left quadrant, we have the United States in the late 1800s, which is when we had a public sector that was significantly smaller than what Hong Kong has today. Heck, nations such as France and Sweden also had very small governments in the 1800s, which is when the western world became rich.
I also added the National Socialists from 1930s Germany. Their fascist economic system retained the veneer of private ownership, but state planning was the dominant economic model.
Moreover, it would be very illuminating to have a three-dimensional matrix in order to capture the difference between cronyism/interventionism and socialism/state planning.
Both involve government officials exercising power over the allocation of resources, of course, but cronyism/interventionism tends to be ad hoc and morally corrupt while socialism/state planning tends to be systemic and intellectually corrupt.
Though if a government engages in enough cronyism/interventionism (think Venezuela), the net result looks a lot like socialism/state planning (think North Korea).
Or maybe we should have a four-dimensional matrix so we also can distinguish between systems with nominal private property (such as fascism) and ones where the government owns the “factors of production” (such as socialism and communism).
The unfortunate reality is that there are several strains of statism, all of which are bad.
By the way, one of Hillary Clinton’s advisors, Gene Sperling, was recently asked about the difference between a socialist and a Democrat and was accused of dodging the question just like Hillary (and, I would add, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz).
“I’m not here to do general definitions,” replied Gene Sperling, a Hillary Clinton economic adviser, when asked by MSNBC: ‘What is the difference between a socialist and a Democrat?’ MSNBC’s Chris Matthews stumped Hillary Clinton with the same question several months ago.
Though, if you watch the interview, I think Gene actually gets close to the truth. He said Hillary was a “progressive” (which presumably means lots of redistribution), but nonetheless supports the market economy (as opposed to state planning).
To be sure, there are many examples of Hillary wanting to engage in interventionism, so Sperling may be right about socialism but wrong about Mrs. Clinton.
Let’s close with a video on socialism from Dennis Prager, though it applies equally to redistributionism (or any system where people can use the coercive power of government to obtain unearned goodies).
One of the most insightful parts of the video was when Dennis pointed out that excessive government weakens character. Which is just another way of pointing out that statism erodes social capital.
And I fear he’s right that regaining and restoring character is not that easy. Once people have decided that it’s morally acceptable to use the power of government to take what other people have produced, restoring an ethical society is probably like putting toothpaste back in a tube.
Which explains why I am so miserably pessimistic about the future of places such as Greece.
[…] in 2016, I created a 2×2 matrix to illustrate the difference between redistributionism (tax Person A and give to […]
[…] in 2016, I created a 2×2 matrix to illustrate the difference between redistributionism (tax Person A and give to […]
[…] in 2016, I created a 2×2 matrix to illustrate the difference between redistributionism (tax Person A and give to […]
[…] in 2016, I created a 2×2 matrix to illustrate the difference between redistributionism (tax Person A and give to […]
[…] in 2016, I created a 2×2 matrix to illustrate the difference between redistributionism (tax Person A and give to […]
[…] in 2016, I created a 2×2 matrix to illustrate the difference between redistributionism (tax Person A and give to Person B) and […]
[…] in 2016, I created a 2×2 matrix to illustrate the difference between redistributionism (tax Person A and give to […]
[…] in 2016, I created a 2×2 matrix to illustrate the difference between redistributionism (tax Person A and give to Person B) and […]
[…] is not only superior to socialism, it’s also better than other alternatives (social justice, redistributionism, state planning, […]
[…] instance, as illustrated by this 2×2 matrix, I claimed in 2016 that nations with small fiscal burdens aren’t necessarily pro-free market […]
[…] But I do have some actual knowledge of economics, so this is a good opportunity to share some excerpts from my recent article in the Federalist. I start with the basic observation that interventionism is misguided. […]
[…] also created a 2×2 matrix to show how various nations should be characterized when measuring redistribution and […]
[…] also created a 2×2 matrix to show how various nations should be characterized when measuring redistribution and […]
[…] Last but not least, it’s worth noting that countries don’t trade. Instead, trade is between consumers and businesses and those transaction are – by definition – mutually beneficial. Interfering with those transactions is pernicious government intervention. […]
[…] argued, for instance, that even Bernie Sanders isn’t a real socialist, and that there are big differences between countries like Sweden, China, and North Korea). For what it’s worth, that’s actually […]
[…] Jonah Goldberg and Dennis Prager both have videos with some insight on this […]
[…] argued, for instance, that even Bernie Sanders isn’t a real socialist, and that there are big differences between countries like Sweden, China, and North […]
[…] P.P.P.S. And even though self-proclaimed socialists pontificate about sharing and compassion, their ideology actually promotes a bad kind of selfishness. […]
[…] just because such policies are good for overall economic performance, but also because small businesses shouldn’t be […]
[…] just because such policies are good for overall economic performance, but also because small businesses shouldn’t be […]
Seems like the United States electorate has entered the irreversible vicious cycle of social capital loss. This year’s electoral choices are yet another chapter along that now unstoppable and deteriorating trendline.
I think the slope has become stronger than the friction coefficient.
Could also collapse it into a summary one dimensional graph. Freedom vs coercive collectivism.