Criticisms of socialism 1708485 222430563 2008-06-29T08:54:12Z 67.163.201.218 /* Distorted or absent price signals */ added some more details in place of "underperforming" {{missing information|On which criticisms of socialism apply to which [[types of socialism]]. Many criticisms target features found in some but not in other forms of socialism.|date=March 2008}} {{Socialism}} '''Criticisms of [[socialism]]''' range from disagreements over the efficiency of socialist economic and political models, to condemnation of [[socialist state|states]] described by themselves or others as "socialist." Many [[economic liberalism|economic liberals]] dispute that the [[egalitarianism|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 state]]s, 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, some of the criticisms presented below may not apply to all forms of socialism (for example, many of the economic criticisms are directed at a [[Soviet Union|Soviet]]-style [[planned economy]], while some proposed socialisms advocate different methods of economic planning, and others reject planned economics altogether). Critics argue that socialist policies reduce work incentives and 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 [[Planned economy|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 better than capitalism. Other socialists argue that a certain degree of efficiency can and should be sacrificed for the sake of economic equality or other social goals. ==Reduced prosperity== {{Expand-section|date=June 2008}} 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.<ref>Hans-Hermann Hoppe. A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism [http://www.mises.org/etexts/Soc&Cap.pdf].</ref> 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 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.<ref>[[Ludwig von Mises]], ''[[Socialism (book)|Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis]]'', Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, Inc.. 1981, trans. J. Kahane, IV.30.21</ref> ==Distorted or absent price signals== {{Main|Economic calculation problem}} 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."<ref>[[Reason (magazine)|Reason Magazine]], [http://reason.com/hayekint.shtml ''The Road to Serfdom, Foreseeing the Fall'']. [[Friedrich Hayek]] interviewed by [[Thomas W. Hazlett]]</ref> 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-capitalism|anarcho-capitalist]] economist Hans-Hermann 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.<ref>Hans-Hermann Hoppe. A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism [http://www.mises.org/etexts/Soc&Cap.pdf]. Kluwer Academic Publishers. page 46 in PDF.</ref>. [[Hungary|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."<ref>{{cite book | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=9HOIGdNK_EoC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=the+attempt+to+realize+market+socialism&source=web&ots=BmHb1xvIVw&sig=xDeT3GSPseVijOufOxzxKMHL-0o | first = Bertell | last = Ollman | title = Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists | coauthors = David Schweickart, | year = 1998 | publisher = Routledge | country = UK | ISBN = 0415919665 | page = 7 }}</ref> 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.<ref>As argued, for example, in the 2001 Program of the Communist Party of Canada [http://www.communist-party.ca/program/program_00.html]</ref> 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 competition|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.<ref>[https://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf "The Myth of Natural Monopoly"], by [[Thomas DiLorenzo]]</ref><ref>[http://www.mises.org/etexts/theoryofmonopolyprice.pdf "The Development Of The Theory Of Monopoly Price"], by [[Joseph Salerno]]</ref> * That market systems are distorted by the unequal power of the players in the markets. Globalissues.org editor, Anup Shah (a leftist, though not necessarily a socialist){{Fact|date=March 2008}} 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]]. [http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade/Criticisms.asp] * That one or another socialist approach can mitigate the role of [[Externality|externalities]] in pricing, producing results at least as efficient as those under capitalism. This was basically the argument put forward by [[Oskar R. Lange]] [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/lange.htm] and the [[Paretian]]s [http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/paretian/paretoptimal.htm]; ''see also [[Pareto efficiency]]''. In her book ''How We Survived Communism & Even Laughed'',<ref>ISBN 0-06-097540-7</ref> [[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 machine]]s. But there is not only a problem with creating shortages but with creating surpluses as well. If a state-owned 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."<ref>Interview with Milton Friedman. July 31, 1991 Stanford California. [http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/printmember/fri0int-1]</ref> Somewhat related to the Economic calculation problem but using a different approach. Proponents of [[Chaos theory]] argue that it is impossible to make accurate long-term predictions for highly complex systems such as an economy. [http://www.phil.uu.nl/~janb/phloofin/eclog.html] Some socialist theorists have used similar calculational arguments to criticize capitalism and non-market socialism, while promoting free-market socialism (e.g. [[mutualism (economic theory)|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.<ref>Proudhon, Pierre J. ''General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century'', third study.</ref> [[Kevin A. Carson]] argues that capitalist corporations, without internal markets, face the same calculational problems as states do. ==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.<ref>Zoltan J. Acs & Bernard Young. ''Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises in the Global Economy. University of Michigan Press, page 47, 1999.</ref> However, many socialists do not see income sharing as the foundation of socialist economics. Instead, they argue that, as Marx and [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]] stated, socialism gives every worker [[To each according to his contribution|the full product of his labour.]]<ref>{{cite journal | title = The Socialist Economics of Karl Marx and His Followers 1 | journal = The Quarterly Journal of Economics | year = 1906 | volume = 20 | author = Thorstein Veblen | accessdate = 2007-03-14 | url = http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/veblen/marx1.txt }}</ref> <ref>{{cite journal | title = The Beginning of Ownership | author = Thorstein Veblen | journal = American Journal of Sociology | volume = 4 | year = 1898 | url = http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/veblen/ownersh }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | url = http://libcom.org/library/a-critique-of-the-german-social-democratic-program-bakunin | title = Bakunin on Anarchism | publisher = Black Rose Books | editor = Sam Dolgoff | year = 1971 | accessdate = 2007-03-14 | author = Michael Bakunin }}</ref> This view is inspired by the [[Marxism|Marxist]] notion that capitalism exploits the working class and that only socialism can reward people according to their work. [http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons01.html] 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."<ref>Mill, John Stuart. ''The Principles of Political Economy'', Book IV, Chapter 7.</ref> The [[social democracy|social democrat]]ic 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 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."<ref>John Kenneth Galbraith, ''The Good Society: The Humane Agenda,'' (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1996), 59-60."</ref> 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." <ref>Peter Kropotkin, Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, p. 25</ref> 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."'' <ref>Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator," Boston Globe, Monday 19 January 1987</ref> 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." <ref>Punished by Rewards, p. 24</ref> 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." <ref>Punished by Rewards, p.25</ref> 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, {{quotation|"equality does not mean an equal amount but equal opportunity. . . Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced 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." <ref>''[[Now and After|What is Anarchism?]]'', p. 164</ref>}} And libertarian socialist [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon]] argues, {{quotation|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 capital-labour-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." <ref>No Gods, No Masters, vol. 1, pp. 57-8</ref>}} 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.<ref name="Self">Self, Peter. ''Socialism''. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.339 "Extreme equality overlooks the diversity of individual talents, tastes and needs, and save in a utopian society of unselfish individuals would entail strong coercion; but even short of this goal, there is the problem of giving reasonable recognition to different individual needs, tastes (for work or leisure) and talents. It is true therefore that beyond some point the pursuit of equality runs into controversial or contradictory criteria of need or merit."</ref> 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== {{Expand-section|date=June 2008}} 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 technologically backward areas are those where government owns the means of production.<ref>Milton Friedman. ''We have Socialism Q.E.D.'', Op-Ed in New York Times December 31, 1989 [http://www.sangam.org/taraki/articles/2006/11-25_Friedman_MGR.php?uid=2075]</ref> 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. ==The tragedy of the commons== {{main|Tragedy of the commons}} The [[tragedy of the commons]], in its narrowest sense, refers to the situation of certain grazing lands communally owned by [[Kingdom of Great Britain|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.){{Fact|date=March 2007}} <!-- Which work? --> 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 [[Earth's atmosphere|air]] and [[ocean]]s. [[Paul Burkett]] makes a specifically Marxist case for socialism as being better able to address the issue of managing the environment <ref>{{cite journal | author = Paul Burkett | url = http://www.sdonline.org/34/paul_burkett.htm | journal = Socialism and Democracy | volume = 17 | number = 2 | title = Ecology and Marx’s Vision of Communism }}</ref>. 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 terms, air and sea pollution are cases of [[market failure]] due to [[Externality|externalities]] (market agents do not pay the full costs of their actions). While most [[environmentalism|environmentalists]] propose to solve such problems through government regulations, there is also a theory of [[free-market environmentalism]], which argues that the most effective direction of reform is continued privatization of the commons [http://www.perc.org]. 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.{{Fact|date=March 2007}}<!-- perc.org? can we get a better citation specifically to an essay or paper? --> 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 [[Bolshevik]]s, particularly [[Georgi Plekhanov]], who evoked this idea to make his case that a socialist state would need regulations.{{Fact|date=March 2007}} ==Political criticisms== {{Expand-section|date=June 2008}} ===Hayek=== [[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.<ref>Friedrich Hayek, ''The Road to Serfdom'', Routledge (2001), ISBN 0415255430.</ref> ===Churchill=== [[Winston Churchill]] criticized socialism for inevitably evolving into a totalitarian regime claiming that: <blockquote>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.''<ref>Alan O. Ebenstein. ''Friedrich Hayek: A Biography.'' (2003). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0226181502 p.137</ref></blockquote> ===Others=== [[Benedetto Croce]], an Italian liberal who influenced socialist [[Antonio Gramsci]], scorned Marx and Hegel who attempted to reduce history to a few guiding principles. [[Georges Sorel]], a French philosopher, embraced Marxism, but who attempted to fill in gaps in Marxist theory. To Sorel, that is way "too much of a conceptual, ideological construction," [1; 312] smothering our perception of truth through the "stifling oppression of remorselessly tidy rational organisation." [1; 321] For Sorel, the inevitable "consequence of the modern scientific movement and the application of scientific categories and methods to the behaviour of men," [1; 323] is an outburst of interest in irrational forces, religions, social unrest, criminality and deviance - resulting directly from an overzealous and monistic obsession with scientific rationalism." This would clearly be at odds with many socialists, and especially Marxist, who attempt to reduce history and sociology to scientific terms. ==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."<ref>[[Ludwig von Mises]], ''[[Socialism (book)|Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis]]'', Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, Inc.. 1981, trans. J. Kahane, IV.30.21</ref> It has also been criticised as the institutionalising of envy.<ref>the quote is in Hayek's road to serfdom<ref> 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 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."<ref>F.A. Hayek. ''[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism]''. (1949).</ref> 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.<ref>Robert Nozick. ''[http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1.html Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism?]''. (1998).</ref> ==Objectivist criticism== [[Objectivity (philosophy)|Objectivists]] criticise socialism as devaluing the [[individual]], and making people incapable of choosing their own [[Objectivist theory of value|values]], as decisions are made centrally. They also reject socialism's indifference to [[property]] rights. <ref>[http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Bloody_Socialism.html Socialism<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> ==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 state]]s on the one hand and Northern European [[welfare state]]s (e.g. [[Sweden]]) on the other. Within the socialist movement, views are divided as follows:{{Fact|date=March 2007}} *[[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] argue that some or all of the historical Communist states were examples of socialism. * [[Trotskyism|Trotskyists]] normally argue that historical Communist states (apart from the [[Soviet Union|USSR]] up to around [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]]'s death) were not socialist, but [[deformed workers' state]]s (the USSR becoming a [[degenerated workers' state]] or, according to some revisionist Trotskyists, examples of [[state capitalism]] or [[bureaucratic collectivism]]. * [[Social democracy|Social democrats]] who define themselves as socialists generally argue that welfare states are examples of socialism. * Some, [[libertarian socialism|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 object of a particularly virulent criticism, and there are numerous arguments over their historical records on standards of living, economic growth, and particularly human rights. 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 [[People's Republic of China|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.{{Fact|date=March 2007}} For extensive coverage of the debates surrounding criticisms of communism and Communist states, see ''[[criticisms of communism]]'' and ''[[Criticisms of Communist party rule|criticisms of communist regimes]]''. Some [[libertarian socialism|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]] [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04168a.htm]. Others have accused [[Social anarchism|social anarchists]] fighting in the [[Spanish Civil War]], of atrocities committed in regions under their control. <ref>In particular, {{cite book | first=Burnett | last=Bolloten | year=1991 | title=The Spanish Civil War: Revolution and Counterrevolution | publisher=University of North Carolina Press | location=Chapel Hill, NC | id= }}</ref> Critics of [[Israel]]i [[kibbutz]]im have accused them of economic mismanagement, leading to a $17 billion government bailout and declining populations,<ref>[http://www.washtimes.com/world/20070304-114147-6135r.htm Kibbutz ideal collapses as Israel shifts to capitalism] Joshua Mitnick THE WASHINGTON TIMES March 5, 2007</ref>. 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 short-lived.<ref>[http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.10009/news_detail.asp The Rise and Fall of Socialism] Joshua Muravchik SPEECHES AEI Bradley Lecture Series Publication Date: February 8, 1999</ref> ==See also== *[[Criticisms of anarchism]] *[[Criticisms of Marxism]] *[[Anti-communism]] *[[Socialist state]] *[[Free market]] *[[Index of Economic Freedom]] ==Further reading== *{{cite book|author=[[Ludwig von Mises]]|title=[[Socialism (book)|Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis]][http://www.mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx]|publisher=Liberty Fund|year=1922| id=ISBN 0-913966-63-0}} *{{cite book|author=[[Friedrich Hayek]]|title=[[The Road to Serfdom]]|publisher=University Of Chicago Press; 50th Anniversary edition |year=1944|id=ISBN 0-226-32061-8}} *{{cite book|author=[[Friedrich Hayek]]|title=[[The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism]]|publisher=University Of Chicago Press |year=1988|id=ISBN 0-226-32068-5}} *{{cite book|author=[[Friedrich Hayek]]|title=[[Socialism and War: Essays, Documents, Reviews]]|publisher=University Of Chicago Press |year=1997|id=ISBN 0-226-32058-8}} *{{cite book|author=[[Jesús Huerta de Soto]]|title=[http://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/pdf_socialismo/indice.pdf Socialismo, cálculo económico y función empresarial] ("Socialism, Economic Calculation, and Entrepreneurship")|publisher=Unión Editorial|year=1992| id=ISBN 84-7209-420-0}} *{{cite book|author=[[Gurcharan Das]]|title=[[India Unbound]]|year=2000}} * Emile Perreau-Saussine, ''What remains of socialism ?'', in Patrick Riordan (dir.), Values in Public life: aspects of common goods (Berlin, LIT Verlag, 2007), p. 11-34 ==References== <!--This article uses the Cite.php citation mechanism. If you would like more information on how to add footnotes to this article, please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php --> {{reflist}} ==External links== * [http://genus.cogia.net ''School of Darkness''] Autobiography of [[Bella Dodd]], ex-Communist (1954) * {{dmoz|Society/Politics/Socialism/Opposing_Views/|Socialism: Opposing Views}} * "Socialism", [http://www.mises.org/etexts/ecopol.asp ''Economic Policy''] 2nd Lecture, by [[Ludwig von Mises]]<div class="small"> ** [http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=2755 Slavery vs. Freedom (Part 1 of 4)] ** [http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=2756 Class Warfare vs. Harmony of Interests (Part 2 of 4)] ** [http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=2757 Central Planning vs. Freedom (Part 3 of 4)] ** [http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=2758 Inability of Economic Calculation (Part 4 of 4)] </div> * [http://www.pbs.org/heavenonearth/ PBS' ''Heaven on Earth: the Rise and Fall of Socialism''] * [http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html ''The Law''] by [[Frédéric Bastiat]] * [http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf "The Intellectuals and Socialism"] by [[Friedrich Hayek]] * [http://cob.jmu.edu/rossermv/Caldwell.pdf "Hayek and Socialism"] by Bruce Caldwell * [http://www.cei.org Home Page of Competitive Enterprise Institute] * [http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/Tyler/socialistcalcdebate.pdf calculation debate, updated] * [http://www.cato.org/special/berlinwall/palmer1990.html "Why Socialism Collapsed in Eastern Europe"] by Tom Palmer * [http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Socialism.html ''Socialism''] by [[Robert Heilbroner]] * [http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard86.html "Nixonian Socialism"] by [[Murray Rothbard]] * [http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=295&sortorder=authorlast "The Intellectual Cover for Socialism"] by [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]] * [http://www.mises.org/etexts/Soc&Cap.pdf "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism"], by [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]] * [http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Enc/Socialism.html "Socialism"], by [[Robert Heilbroner]] * [http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/tucker/tucker2.html "State socialism and anarchism"] by [[Benjamin Tucker]] * [http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/freud.htm Lecture XXXV "A Philosophy of Life"] includes a critique of marxist socialism by [[Sigmund Freud]] * [http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Boettke.pdf Socialism: Still Impossible After All These Years], by Peter J. Boettke and Peter T. Leeson * [http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/510 The Myth of the Scandinavian Model], by Martin De Vlieghere, Paul Vreymans and Willy De Wit * [http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Users/ssfa2/middleground.pdf Rescuing the Middle Ground: Neoliberalism and Associational Socialism] by Luke Martell [[Category:Anti-communism]] [[Category:Socialism]] [[Category:Criticisms|Socialism]] [[Category:Capitalism]] [[fr:Critiques du socialisme]]