The devotees of the philosophical underpinnings of Socialism depend on entangled ideas that form a confused string of concepts based on a utopian ideal. There are two ideas for the virtuous socialists that are frequently mentioned together: equalizing the masses and bringing down the wealthy. For the sloganeering socialist this process is defined in terms of absolute equity and equality. The opposing conservative point of view focuses on equality of opportunity. The socialist view determines success in terms of equality in result. Although socialism is primarily an economic concept, it cannot be separated from the social or political contexts of the day.
Equity and equality are two words normally associated together, but are in fact, words with two different connotations. Also, equity and equality serve the master of fairness. Fairness is an undefined term in any natural state. It stands for whatever the user of the word wants it to stand for. These three entangled words, equality, equity, and fairness have no standing in nature by themselves such as the right to choose one’s leaders. There is no structural reason for their existence. To clarify, equity and equality imply slightly different connotations. Equity is more of a social construct whereas equality is measurable in units of equal measure.
The socialist asks, why should one man have more than another? The religious point out that we are equal under God, the atheist points to our state in nature. “All men are created equal . . . .” The latter question is a little confusing. The former state is that all humans are born such that “Naked we enter the world . . . ,” We all enter the world with nothing intellectually or physically. Even if a child should be born and the single parent mother dies at that same moment so that the child inherits the mother’s estate, that child is, as a child, still naked for a moment and in a state of equality with all other just born children. But it doesn’t take long for inequities to develop. Mother-1 may be wealthy, therefore her child becomes wealthy. The child is still a child, only trivially different compared to others in the amount of clothes she wears. Child-2’s mother dies also, but leaves the child only debts to the hospital for the cost of being born. The two children as individuals are equal, but their estates are not. In order to achieve equity, they must achieve equality, therefore estate-1 pays (usually through insurance) for Estate-2s medical bills.. In other words, they are now equal and that is fair (fairness is achieved). A mathematician might put it this way:
ei (equity) + ea (equality) = fairness.
The involuntary arrangement where the estate of mother 1 pays the hospital bill for mother 2’s child seems fair to the socialist, and as a matter of humanitarian concern, perhaps to anyone else where the unexpected randomness of life creates damage to one’s life. After all, child 2 is not responsible for where he is at the moment of birth. These value judgments are often made. That is fairness is a desired state, fairness is defined as equity in action, which achieves fairness.
Since Child-1, let us call her, Mary, is too young to complain (and is orphaned) she has no say in what has happened. This is a blissful state for the socialist who believes in both equity, equality, and fairness. Not so surprisingly, the genetic code and environment of Mary and Child-2, we shall call her Jane, are not the same. In real life, the two children as they mature will set off on different paths. The socialist rolls on also, but realizes that equity and equality are distorted over time. Mary becomes wealthy and Jane has a drinking problem and slumps into poverty. The Socialist does not give up. Fairness is a maintenance concept requiring adjustments on the way.
Here is the second part of socialist entanglement theory. Uppity rich people need to be brought low. Fairness is related to the need to bring down the high and the mighty. Accommodation is made for elite members of the ruling class. They are the last ones to starve. Doing so is the only way to achieve fairness. The only way to do this is to divide the gross national product by the number of people in question. Entanglement theory posits that we are all together, as far as we know, on the great, blue marble known as planet Earth.
So, what happens when Governor Nanny grabs takes the wealth of Mary? Does that make Jane wealthier? That might happen in the short run, but Jane, with a different genetic code, different experiences, different desires, and different environment is not capable of reproducing Mary’s success. Jane dissipates her wealth in Las Vegas, buying expensive cars, and enjoying the wild life. For a moment the economy of Las Vegas grows which benefits everyone. But when Jane runs out of money, Governor Nanny turns again to Mary. But Mary has become an artist. Why should Mary continue to support Jane, whom she doesn’t even know. Was she working 60-hour days for the fun of it, or was the idea of financial success a part of it? Governor Nanny doesn’t care. The reduced circumstances of Jane need to be addressed.
The socialist state does not build wealth. It doesn’t even pretend to build wealth. American socialist Bernie Sanders has three homes and is a millionaire. He makes no apologies and does not attempt to explain the contradiction, just that he wrote a successful book and he was happy to keep the money. That he seeks redistribution of wealth in the United States, appeals to a different side of him; that is, socialists seek wealth in the form of power. They may even hoard wealth and power becoming the elites of the nation. Elitism is a requirement of the socialistic model because Socialism is not a natural state in complex economies. It is a top down philosophy in which experts, including elite leaders, rule for the sake of the masses in a form of noblesse oblige one relegated to the Lords and Ladies of European society. Socialists seek self-aggrandizement in their own way. That is why Communist and Socialist governments rule by fear. Even within early societies there was a hierarchy based on a skill set in demand for those societies. Early societies had no choice. Living in a tribe of a few dozen surviving humans is not a test of socialism. Rather, it is the confinement by the natural environment that imposed itself on early humanity; poverty was not a community goal.
The Free Enterprise philosophy is a bottom up system with a regulatory device called competition. There is, of course, government for the purpose of establishing the rules of the game. But it serves a purpose to create its own equality. It is a mistake to think that it guarantees success to the entrepreneur. Perfection does not happen. But when the rules are the same and the rules are just, the idea of equity and equality merge into fairness in the same idealistic way claimed by Socialists.
The frightening part about Socialism is that it is an economic system seeking a bottom in a downward spiral. Socialism seeks the lowest common denominator. It averages down until it finds the authoritarian floor in which the Orwellian state must regulate the details of an unnatural system not suited to the human experience.
Hong Kong, which is the economic jewel of China is in the throws of that environment. They know their freedom is at stake. The equality of socialism and the forces of government enforcing it in a system where the rule of law does not exist points to the loss of liberty, not equality of wealth and status. Imagine a world of equality. It suppresses the skilled at the expense of growth. Riots and violence between the free Chinese and the restricted Chinese will likely result in an averaging down of the Hong Kong people. Venezuela has seen the same process, there is only averaging down and loss of liberty—the life blood of economic success and scientific discovery that makes life better for a country’s citizens.
Science will die because it depends on the wealth an economic system brings. The degree of freedom counts for something, for if socialism averages down, free enterprise averages up in the opposite way. Equality among the unequal does not exist. Ideological Socialist puritanism is a prescription for a new Dark Age. A period of economic and scientific decline will not stop until the people are starving and overwhelm the elites with revolution. History can repeat itself. Americans will have restricted healthcare because there won’t be enough money to pay for it, nor enough skilled physicians to undertake the rigors of medical training and cost of medical school for little pay. The pulse of the economic system that creates wealth, rather than redistributes it, will end in zero.