Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out



									From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticisms of socialism

Criticisms of socialism

Currents African · Arab Democratic · Green · Guild Libertarian · Market Revolutionary · Utopian Communism Social anarchism Social democracy Socialist market economy Key topics and issues Types History Economics State Criticisms Organizations and people First International (International Workingmen’s

Second International Third International (Comintern) Fourth International Socialist International International Socialist Organization World Federation of Democratic Youth International Union of Socialist Youth Religious socialism Buddhist · Christian Islamic · Jewish left Related topics Anarchism · Autogestion Class struggle Dictatorship of the proletariat Egalitarianism · Equality of outcome Impossibilism · Internationalism Marxism · Proletarian revolution Socialism in One Country Trade union · Utilitarianism

Criticisms of socialism range from disagreements over the efficiency of socialist economic and political models, to condemnation of states described by themselves or others as "socialist". Many economic liberals dispute that the egalitarian distribution of

wealth and the nationalization of industries advocated by some socialists can be achieved without loss of political or economic freedoms or reduced prosperity for a populace. There is much focus on the economic performance and human rights records of communist states, although many proponents of socialism reject the categorization of such states as socialist. Socialism itself is by no means a monolithic movement; there are important points of disagreement between its several branches. Therefore, the criticisms presented below may not apply to all forms of socialism (for example, many of the economic criticisms are directed at a Soviet-style command economy). Some forms of socialism advocate state ownership of capital in a mixed or market economy, while other forms advocate economic planning and state-ownership of capital. Some forms of socialism, such as social democracy, advocate a mixed system where state and private firms co-exist alongside taxfunded welfare programs, while other strands of socialist thought reject state ownership altogether and instead argue for participatory planning and non-governmental cooperative ownership. Critics often argue that socialist policies reduce work incentives and economic efficiency through the elimination of buying and selling of means of production, eliminating the profit and loss mechanism, lacking a free price system and relying on central planning. They also argue that socialism stagnates technology. They further argue implementing socialist policies reduces prosperity of the populace. Some socialists reply in kind, with the counter-argument that socialism can increase efficiency and economic growth, and that the two are not mutually exclusive, and that there would be increased incentives to work and innovate if the employees managed and received what would be the profit of a minority of capitalist owners. Other socialists argue that a certain degree of efficiency can and should be sacrificed for the sake of economic equality or prioritizing societal goals above economic profit.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Criticisms of socialism
In a market economy, business owners are constantly comparing costs to sales revenue. A business whose costs are higher than its revenues will eventually go bankrupt and the resources it was using will be re-allocated to other purposes (other businesses). In order to make economic decisions, business owners rely on the information provided by prices; millions of owners make millions of separate decisions, leading to decentralized resource allocation that, in the view of its supporters, is the most efficient. Adam Smith dubbed this effect the "invisible hand" of the market. The anarcho-capitalist economist HansHermann Hoppe argues that, in the absence of prices for the means of production, there is no cost-accounting which would direct labor and resources to the most valuable uses.[4]. Hungarian economist Jonas Kornai, once a market socialist himself, modified his views subsequent to the fall of the Soviet system and its eastern European variants. Kornai has written that "the attempt to realize market socialism...produces an incoherent system, in which there are elements that repel each other: the dominance of public ownership and the operation of the market are not compatible."[5] On the other hand, socialists who do reject the market mechanism of pricing make the following claims: • That market systems have a natural tendency toward monopoly or oligopoly in major industries, leading to a distortion of prices.[6] Assuming monopoly to be inevitable, these socialists go on to argue that a public monopoly is better than a private one. Proponents of capitalism respond to this by saying that although private monopolies don’t have any actual competition, there are many potential competitors watching them, and if they were delivering inadequate service, or charging an excessive amount for a good or service, investors would start a competing enterprise.[7][8] • That market systems are distorted by the unequal power of the players in the markets. editor, Anup Shah (a leftist, though not necessarily a socialist) makes this case, suggesting that the current neo-liberal order might be better called "neomercantilism" and applying to it Adam Smith’s critique of how military power distorted trade under mercantilism. [8]

Reduced prosperity
According to economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, countries where the means of production are socialized are not as prosperous as those where the means of production are under private control.[1] Another economist, Ludwig von Mises, said that aiming for more equal incomes through state intervention necessarily leads to a reduction in national income and therefore average income. Consequently, the socialist chooses a more equal distribution of income, on the assumption that the marginal utility of income to a poor person is greater than that to a rich person. This mandates a preference for a lower average income over inequality of income at a higher average income. Mises sees no rational justification for this preference.[2] A counter-argument would be that socialist states have tended to be poorer in resources—which may partly be explained that radicalism is more common among the poor—or isolated from other, non-socialist states.

Distorted or absent price signals
This criticism is directed towards centralized economic planning. According to some of the critics of socialism, the free price system in a market economy guides economic activity so flawlessly that most people don’t appreciate its importance or see its effect. Free-market economists argue that a controlled or fixed price always transmits misleading information about relative scarcity and that inappropriate behavior results from a controlled price, because false information has been transmitted by an artificial price. For example, Friedrich Hayek argued in 1977 that "prices are an instrument of communication and guidance which embody more information than we directly have", and therefore "the whole idea that you can bring about the same order based on the division of labor by simple direction falls to the ground". He further argued that "if you need prices, including the prices of labor, to direct people to go where they are needed, you cannot have another distribution except the one from the market principle."[3]


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• That one or another socialist approach can mitigate the role of externalities in pricing, producing results at least as efficient as those under capitalism. This was basically the argument put forward by Oskar R. Lange [9] and the Paretians [10]; see also Pareto efficiency. In her book How We Survived Communism & Even Laughed,[9] Slavenka Drakulić claims that a major contributor to the fall of socialist planned economies in the former Soviet bloc was the failure to produce the basic consumer goods that its people desired. She argues that, because of the makeup of the leadership of these regimes, the concerns of women got particularly short shrift. She illustrates this, in particular, by the system’s failure to produce washing machines. But there is not only a problem with creating shortages but with creating surpluses as well. If a stateowned industry is able to keep operating with losses, it may continue operating indefinitely producing things that are not in high consumer demand. If consumer demand is too low to sustain the industry with voluntary payments by consumers then it is tax-subsidized. Because of this it prevents resources (capital and labor) from being applied to satisfying more urgent consumer demands. According to economist Milton Friedman "The loss part is just as important as the profit part. What distinguishes the private system from a government socialist system is the loss part. If an entrepreneur’s project doesn’t work, he closes it down. If it had been a government project, it would have been expanded, because there is not the discipline of the profit and loss element."[10] Somewhat related to the Economic calculation problem but using a different approach. Proponents of Chaos theory argue that it is impossible to make accurate longterm predictions for highly complex systems such as an economy. [11] Some socialist theorists have used similar calculational arguments to criticize capitalism and non-market socialism, while promoting free-market socialism (e.g. mutualism). Pierre-Joseph Proudhon raises similar calculational issues in his General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century but also proposes certain voluntary arrangements which would also require economic calculation.[11] Kevin A. Carson argues that capitalist corporations, without internal markets, face the same calculational problems as states do.

Criticisms of socialism

Reduced incentives for workers
The nature of the distribution of wealth that would exist under socialism is a matter of controversy and debate. Some commentators, including both critics and a number of advocates of socialism, have seen the socialist ideal in terms of income sharing. Proponents claim that the sharing of income and wealth would foster social cooperation, while critics argue that any kind of income sharing reduces individual incentives to work, and therefore incomes should be individualized as much as possible.[12] However, many socialists do not see income sharing as the foundation of socialist economics. Instead, they argue that, as Marx and Lenin stated, socialism gives every worker the full product of his labour.[13] [14][15] This view is inspired by the Marxist notion that capitalism exploits the working class and that only socialism can reward people according to their work. [12] Critics of those forms of socialism which advocate complete economic equality have argued that in any society where everyone holds equal wealth there can be no material incentive to work, because one does not receive rewards for a work well done. They further argue that incentives increase productivity for all people and that the loss of those effects would lead to stagnation. John Stuart Mill in The Principles of Political Economy (1848) said: "It is the common error of Socialists to overlook the natural indolence of mankind; their tendency to be passive, to be the slaves of habit, to persist indefinitely in a course once chosen. Let them once attain any state of existence which they consider tolerable, and the danger to be apprehended is that they will thenceforth stagnate; will not exert themselves to improve, and by letting their faculties rust, will lose even the energy required to preserve them from deterioration. Competition may not be the best conceivable stimulus, but it is at present a necessary one, and no one can foresee the time when it will not be indispensable to progress."[16] The economist John Kenneth Galbraith has criticized radical egalitarian socialism as unrealistic in its assumptions about human motivation: "This hope [that egalitarian reward would lead to a higher level of motivation], one that spread far beyond Marx, has been


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
shown by both history and human experience to be irrelevant. For better or worse, human beings do not rise to such heights. Generations of socialists and socially oriented leaders have learned this to their disappointment and more often to their sorrow. The basic fact is clear: the good society must accept men and women as they are."[17] Libertarian socialists and anarchists argue that profit is a poor incentive for society to progress and that profit and inequal distribution is a paternalistic "reward-punishment" type of psychology. Peter Kropotkin rejected the notion that monetary profit is the only reason people try to improve. He rejected capitalist arguments about profit as a "narrow concept of life which consist[s] in thinking that profits are the only leading motive of human society."[18] According to Alfie Kohn, a growing body of psychological research suggests that rewards can lower performance levels, especially when the performance involves creativity, "a related series of studies shows that intrinsic interest in a task – the sense that something is worth doing for its own sake – typically declines when someone is rewarded for doing it."[19] Social anarchists in particular feel that competition undermines human relationships, lowers self-esteem and stifles the development of self-directed individuals who instead base themselves on comparison to accomplishments of others. Alfie Kohn argues "[it is] not an accident that the theory behind ’Do this and you’ll get that’ derives from work with other species, or that behaviour management is frequently described in words better suited to animals."[20] and "[we are] beings who possess natural curiosity about ourselves and our environment, who search for and overcome challenges, who try and master skills and attain competence, and who seek new levels of complexity in what we learn and do . . . in general we act on the environment as much as we are acted on by it, and we do not do so simply in order to receive a reward."[21] However, it should be noted that libertarian socialists do not argue for "equality of endowment" or "equality of outcome" but instead argue for equality of condition and equal opportunity. As Alexander Berkman put it, "equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced

Criticisms of socialism
equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse in fact."[22] And libertarian socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argues, Now, what can be the origin of this inequality? As we see it, . . . that origin is the realisation within society of this triple abstraction: capital, labour and talent. It is because society has divided itself into three categories of citizen corresponding to the three terms of the formula. . . that caste distinctions have always been arrived at, and one half of the human race enslaved to the other. . . socialism thus consists of reducing the aristocratic formula of capitallabour-talent into the simpler formula of labour!. . . in order to make every citizen simultaneously, equally and to the same extent capitalist, labourer and expert or artist."[23] Peter Self criticizes the traditional socialist planned economy and argues against pursuing "extreme equality" because he believes it requires "strong coercion" and does not allow for "reasonable recognition [for] different individual needs, tastes (for work or leisure) and talents." He recommends market socialism instead.[24] The majority of socialists believe that a balance should be reached between equality, incentives and diversity, and feel confident that such a balance would still allow for a much greater degree of equality than capitalist societies currently have.

Slow or stagnant technological advance
Economist Milton Friedman argued that socialism, by which he meant state ownership over the means of production, impedes technological progress due to competition being stifled. As evidence, he said that we need only look to the U.S. to see where socialism fails, by observing that the most


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
technologically backward areas are those where government owns the means of production.[25] Without a reward system, it is argued, many inventors or investors would not risk time or capital for research. This was one of the reasons for the United States Patent system and copyright law.

Criticisms of socialism
terms, air and sea pollution are cases of market failure due to externalities (market agents do not pay the full costs of their actions). While most environmentalists propose to solve such problems through government regulations, there is also a theory of freemarket environmentalism, which argues that the most effective direction of reform is continued privatization of the commons [13]. The United States, and some other nations, have experimented with market solutions in the form of emissions trading in order to reduce air pollution. Such trading uses an artificially created market in which a government decides the number of emissions credits that will be in circulation and the rules under which they may be traded. Lastly, there is a body of thought, often linked to cultural anthropology and to modern institutional economics, that recognizes that constraints must exist to prevent the private overuse of resources. However, this perspective contends that alternative institutions than private property might well be just as effective or more effective in meeting those goals and better suited to meeting social goals. This was the belief of many early Bolsheviks, particularly Georgi Plekhanov, who evoked this idea to make his case that a socialist state would need regulations.

The tragedy of the commons
The tragedy of the commons, in its narrowest sense, refers to the situation of certain grazing lands communally owned by British villages in the 16th century. These lands were made available for public use (or, more precisely, the use of those with rights in that common land). According to Garrett Hardin and others, because each individual had more of an incentive to maximize his (or her) own benefit from this common land than to be concerned for its sustainability, the land was eventually overgrazed and became worthless. (However, studies by C.J. Dahlman and others have argued that no such tragedy actually occurred. According to Dahlman, access to the commons in the 16th century was constrained by a variety of cultural protocols and was far from equal.) More generally, the line of argument is that when assets are owned in common, there are no incentives in place to encourage wise stewardship. While private property is said to create incentives for conservation and the responsible use of property, common property is said to encourage irresponsibility and waste. In other words, the argument is that if everyone owns an asset, people act as if no one owns it. And when no one owns it, no one really takes care of it. This is an argument directed at libertarian socialism and other proposed forms of socialism where there is little or no central authority to act as a steward of public property. On a related note, many socialists point out that some things are almost inevitably commons, for example air and oceans. Paul Burkett makes a specifically Marxist case for socialism as being better able to address the issue of managing the environment [26]. Some critics respond that air and oceans are indeed commons and that problems such as overfishing and global warming due to pollution can be traced to this fact. In economic

Political criticisms
Friedrich Hayek in his The Road to Serfdom has argued that the more even distribution of wealth through the nationalization of the means of production advocated by certain socialists cannot be achieved without a loss of political, economic, and human rights. According to Hayek, to achieve control over means of production and distribution of wealth it is necessary for such socialists to acquire significant powers of coercion. Hayek argued that the road to socialism leads society to totalitarianism, and saw Fascism and Nazism as inevitable outcome of the socialist trends in Italy and Germany during the preceding period.[27]

Winston Churchill criticized socialism for inevitably evolving into a totalitarian regime claiming that:


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
a socialist policy is abhorrent to the British ideas of freedom. Socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the object worship of the state. It will prescribe for every one where they are to work, what they are to work at, where they may go and what they may say. Socialism is an attack on the right to breathe freely. No socialist system can be established without a political police. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.[28]

Criticisms of socialism
which for a long time only the intellectuals were familiar; and it required long efforts by the intellectuals before the working classes could be persuaded to adopt it as their program."[30] According to Robert Nozick, education plays a crucial role in provoking resentment towards capitalism among many intellectuals. Schools reward intellectual achievement, and not business skills, so intellectuals start to expect to be the most highly valued people in a society. However, in a wider society successful businessmen often earn more money than successful intellectuals, which can inspire a special resentment among intellectuals towards the existing system.[31]

Ludwig von Mises argued that a socialist system based upon a planned economy would not be able to allocate resources effectively due to the lack of price signals. Because the means of production would be controlled by a single entity, approximating prices for capital goods in a planned economy would be impossible. The Polish socialist economist Oskar Lange responded to this criticism theoretically with the Lange-model.

Objectivist criticism
Objectivists criticize socialism as devaluing the individual, and making people incapable of choosing their own values, as decisions are made centrally. They also reject socialism’s indifference to property rights.[32]

Religious criticisms
Socialism was strongly criticized in the 1878 papal encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris by Pope Leo XIII. It was again strongly criticized in the 1931 letter Quadragesimo Anno. Socialists are accused of being evil, impious men who want to overthrow all existing civil society and who profess doctrines which are utterly irreconcilable with Christian notions of man and society.

Fascism fundamentally opposes Marxian socialism because of its emphasis on class struggle above nationalism, ethnic purity and the struggle of nations. Fascism views the nation to be more important than class, and favored a corpratist mixed economy that encouraged class collaboration as opposed to class struggle. Furthermore, the goals of fascism differ from most socialist philosophies.

Sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson has offered criticism of socialism on evolutionary grounds. On the topic of ants, he was quoted as saying, "Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species",[33] meaning that while ants and other social insects appear to live in communistlike societies, they only do so because they are compelled to do so as a result of their basic biology. Since they lack reproductive independence, worker ants, being sterile, need their ant-queen to survive as a colony and a species and individual ants cannot reproduce without a queen, thus being forced to live in centralized societies. Humans, however, do possess reproductive independence so they can give birth to offspring without the need

Attitudinal criticism
Mises argues that "resentment lies behind all socialist ideas," which he says can be summed up in the phrase "No one shall be idle if I have to work; no one shall be rich if I am poor."[29] It has also been criticised as the institutionalising of envy. Friedrich Hayek was also critical on the bias shown by university teachers and intellectuals towards socialist ideals. Hayek argues that socialism is not a working class movement as socialists contend, but rather "the construction of theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
of a "queen", and in fact humans enjoy their maximum level of Darwinian fitness only when they look after themselves and their families, while finding innovative ways to use the societies they live in for their own benefit.[34]

Criticisms of socialism
Critics claim that Communist states provided low standards of living and committed numerous human rights violations, including millions of deaths caused directly or indirectly by the government. Estimates of the number of such deaths, in particular those that occurred in China and the Soviet Union, vary greatly depending on the source and methodology, with numbers ranging from under 30 million to 145 million worldwide over the course of the last ninety years. There is widespread disagreement amongst socialists as to whether Communist states can legitimately be described as socialist. Many victims of these states have themselves been socialists, for example during Stalin’s Great Purge of the 1930s. Critics of socialism, in turn, will often criticize the internal conflicts of the socialist movement as creating a sort of "responsibility void." Advocates of Communist states claim that their standards of living and human rights records were better (or no worse) than those of the regimes that preceded them, and that they achieved rapid industrialization and economic growth. Critics argue that the Soviet Union experienced a severe economic downturn in the 1970s and 80s which contributed to its collapse, and that China has been reforming since towards a more market-oriented economy. For extensive coverage of the debates surrounding criticisms of communism and Communist states, see criticisms of communism and criticisms of communist regimes. Some libertarian socialist communes have also been criticized. For instance, the Catholic Encyclopedia states that priests and other religious persons were killed by mobs or by order of the leaders of the Paris Commune [14]. Others have accused social anarchists fighting in the Spanish Civil War of atrocities committed in regions under their control. [35] Critics of Israeli kibbutzim have accused them of economic mismanagement, leading to a $17 billion government bailout and declining populations,[36]. Critics also find fault with the early communities of utopian socialism, such as Robert Owen’s New Harmony, Indiana, Charles Fourier’s North American Phalanx, and many other similar attempts, which were shortlived.[37]

Historical examples
Due to the existence of several branches of the socialist movement, who advocate different kinds of social and economic systems they call "socialism", there is no consensus on what countries, if any, can be given as historical examples of socialism. The two kinds of countries most commonly said to be "socialist" are Communist states on the one hand and Northern European welfare states (e.g., Sweden) on the other. Within the socialist movement, views are divided as follows: • Marxist-Leninists argue that some or all of the historical Communist states were examples of socialism. • Trotskyists normally argue that historical Communist states (apart from the USSR up to around Lenin’s death) were not socialist, but deformed workers’ states (the USSR becoming a degenerated workers’ state or, according to some revisionist Trotskyists, examples of state capitalism or bureaucratic collectivism). • Social democrats who define themselves as socialists generally argue that welfare states are examples of socialism. • Some, libertarian socialists in particular, argue that short-lived political entities such as the Paris Commune or anarchist areas in Spain during the Spanish Civil War were examples of socialism. • Other socialists argue that none of the above examples were socialist, and that socialism has never been applied in practice. Different critics of socialism also hold different views on the subject. Some consider socialism to be a purely theoretical concept that should be criticized on theoretical grounds; others hold that certain historical examples exist and that they can be criticized on practical grounds. Communist states are the subject of a particularly virulent criticism, and there are numerous arguments over their historical records on standards of living, economic growth, and particularly human rights.

See also
• Criticisms of anarchism


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• • • • • Criticisms of Marxism Anti-communism Socialist state Free market Index of Economic Freedom

Criticisms of socialism

[8] "The Development Of The Theory Of Monopoly Price", by Joseph Salerno [9] ISBN 0-06-097540-7 [10] Interview with Milton Friedman. July 31, 1991 Stanford California. [4] [11] Proudhon, Pierre J. General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century, third study. • Ludwig von Mises (1922). Socialism: An [12] Zoltan J. Acs & Bernard Young. Small Economic and Sociological Analysis[15]. and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the Liberty Fund. ISBN 0-913966-63-0. Global Economy. University of Michigan • Friedrich Hayek (1944). The Road to Press, page 47, 1999. Serfdom. University Of Chicago Press; [13] Thorstein Veblen (1906). "The Socialist 50th Anniversary edition. ISBN Economics of Karl Marx and His 0-226-32061-8. Followers 1". The Quarterly Journal of • Friedrich Hayek (1988). The Fatal Economics 20. Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. University Of Chicago Press. ISBN ugcm/3ll3/veblen/marx1.txt. Retrieved on 0-226-32068-5. 2007-03-14. • Friedrich Hayek (1997). Socialism and [14] Thorstein Veblen (1898). "The Beginning War: Essays, Documents, Reviews. of Ownership". American Journal of University Of Chicago Press. ISBN Sociology 4. 0-226-32058-8. • Jesús Huerta de Soto (1992). Socialismo, ugcm/3ll3/veblen/ownersh. cálculo económico y función empresarial [15] Michael Bakunin (1971). Sam Dolgoff. ("Socialism, Economic Calculation, and ed. Bakunin on Anarchism. Black Rose Entrepreneurship"). Unión Editorial. ISBN Books. critique-of-the-german-social-democratic• Gurcharan Das (2000). India Unbound. program-bakunin. Retrieved on • "What remains of Socialism" by Emile 2007-03-14. Perreau-Saussine [16] Mill, John Stuart. The Principles of Political Economy, Book IV, Chapter 7. [17] John Kenneth Galbraith, The Good Society: The Humane Agenda, (Boston, [1] Hans-Hermann Hoppe. A Theory of MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1996), 59-60." Socialism and Capitalism [1]. [18] Peter Kropotkin, Fields, Factories and [2] Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Workshops Tomorrow, p. 25 Economic and Sociological Analysis, [19] Studies Find Reward Often No Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, Inc.. Motivator," Boston Globe, Monday 19 1981, trans. J. Kahane, IV.30.21 January 1987 [3] Reason Magazine, The Road to Serfdom, [20] Punished by Rewards, p. 24 Foreseeing the Fall. Friedrich Hayek [21] Punished by Rewards, p.25 interviewed by Thomas W. Hazlett [22] What is Anarchism?, p. 164 [4] Hans-Hermann Hoppe. A Theory of [23] No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 57-8 Socialism and Capitalism [2]. Kluwer [24] Self, Peter. Socialism. A Companion to Academic Publishers. page 46 in PDF. Contemporary Political Philosophy, [5] Ollman, Bertell; David Schweickart, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, (1998). Market Socialism: The Debate Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.339 Among Socialists. Routledge. p. 7. ISBN "Extreme equality overlooks the diversity 0415919665. of individual talents, tastes and needs, books?id=9HOIGdNK_EoC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=the+attempt+to+realize+market+socialism&sou and save in a utopian society of unselfish [6] As argued, for example, in the 2001 individuals would entail strong coercion; Program of the Communist Party of but even short of this goal, there is the Canada [3] problem of giving reasonable recognition [7] "The Myth of Natural Monopoly", by to different individual needs, tastes (for Thomas DiLorenzo work or leisure) and talents. It is true

Further reading



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
therefore that beyond some point the pursuit of equality runs into controversial or contradictory criteria of need or merit." [25] Milton Friedman. We have Socialism Q.E.D., Op-Ed in New York Times December 31, 1989 [5] [26] Paul Burkett. "Ecology and Marx’s Vision of Communism". Socialism and Democracy 17 (2). paul_burkett.htm. [27] Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, Routledge (2001), ISBN 0415255430. [28] Alan O. Ebenstein. Friedrich Hayek: A Biography. (2003). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226181502 p.137 [29] Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, Inc.. 1981, trans. J. Kahane, IV.30.21 [30] F.A. Hayek. The Intellectuals and Socialism. (1949). [31] Robert Nozick. Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?. (1998). [32] Socialism [33] [6] [34] [7] [35] In particular, Bolloten, Burnett (1991). The Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counterrevolution. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. [36] Kibbutz ideal collapses as Israel shifts to capitalism Joshua Mitnick THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 5, 2007 [37] The Rise and Fall of Socialism Joshua Muravchik SPEECHES AEI Bradley Lecture Series Publication Date: February 8, 1999

Criticisms of socialism
• Socialism: Opposing Views at the Open Directory Project • "Socialism", Economic Policy 2nd Lecture, by Ludwig von Mises • Slavery vs. Freedom (Part 1 of 4) • Class Warfare vs. Harmony of Interests (Part 2 of 4) • Central Planning vs. Freedom (Part 3 of 4) • Inability of Economic Calculation (Part 4 of 4) • What remains of socialism ? [16], by Emile Perreau-Saussine, in Patrick Riordan (dir.), Values in Public life: aspects of common goods (Berlin, LIT Verlag, 2007), pp. 11–34 • The Law by Frédéric Bastiat • "The Intellectuals and Socialism" by Friedrich Hayek • "Hayek and Socialism" by Bruce Caldwell • Home Page of Competitive Enterprise Institute • calculation debate, updated • "Why Socialism Collapsed in Eastern Europe" by Tom Palmer • Socialism by Robert Heilbroner • "Nixonian Socialism" by Murray Rothbard • "The Intellectual Cover for Socialism" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe • "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism", by Hans-Hermann Hoppe • "Socialism", by Robert Heilbroner • "State socialism and anarchism" by Benjamin Tucker • Lecture XXXV "A Philosophy of Life" includes a critique of marxist socialism by Sigmund Freud • Socialism: Still Impossible After All These Years, by Peter J. Boettke and Peter T. Leeson • The Myth of the Scandinavian Model, by Martin De Vlieghere, Paul Vreymans and Willy De Wit

External links
• School of Darkness Autobiography of Bella Dodd, ex-Communist (1954)

Retrieved from "" Categories: Anti-communism, Socialism, Criticisms, Capitalism This page was last modified on 11 May 2009, at 03:29 (UTC). All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) taxdeductible nonprofit charity. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers


To top