Sometimes the best way to understand the effects of socialism is to hear from people who lived in it. The following is a description of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s life in Mogadishu, Somalia.
To me, socialism is more than just an academic concept. When I was around six or seven years old, I lived in Mogadishu, Somalia, with my mother. Much of her daily life consisted of standing in line for hours on end to receive the daily ration of food allotted by the government. At the time, the Somalian state, if one can call it that, had implemented Marxist economics, to the extent that this was possible. To every family the state apportioned a certain quantity of food: sugar, flour, oil, and so on. In the government rations, there was hardly any meat or eggs, as these were deemed to be luxury goods. A person received what the authorities decided was strictly necessary, not what the person wanted.
|
Scientific socialism as implemented by Somalia’s government did not result in equality and justice. On the contrary, it was the people with the strongest political connections to the government and to influential clans who were most empowered. A system that claimed to empower the marginalized and dispossessed showed an astonishing lack of compassion for precisely the least-connected people. Somalia’s communist regime brutally repressed dissidents, as did other authoritarian socialist regimes of the twentieth century. Yet in school, my fellow students and I sang songs of praise for the system, surrounded by large pictures of Marx, Lenin, and Siad Barre.
|
Today this type of orthodox socialism still appears to have its defenders, despite the fact that it failed in Somalia just as it has failed more recently in Venezuela, a once-rich country now engulfed in hunger and chaos because of similar pathologies of corruption and inefficiency that arose inevitably from state control of economic life. Ayaan Hirsi Ali |
Broadly speaking, socialism typically refers to the ownership of things in common, rather than private ownership; it has been defined as “a form of social organization that prioritizes the common ownership of property and the collective control of economic production.” For decades, theory aside, economic socialism inflicted extraordinary misery on hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics. In a capitalist economy, market prices, in a framework of private property, coordinate economic activity. Companies use prices to see which goods, products, and services are needed and where, at what time, and in what quantities. Firms compete, on the basis of market prices, to deliver these goods as efficiently as possible. Firms that miscalculate run the risk of bankruptcy. The most efficient and competitive firms—those that best meet the needs of the public—survive and thrive. |
In a socialist system, however, there are no market pricing signals. This creates chaos throughout the economy. Unlike in a market system, orders to produce come from the top, frequently in the form of quotas. Yet in the absence of a market pricing mechanism to determine profit and loss, poorly performing organizations tend to persist under socialism because there is no bankruptcy to eliminate them.
Socialist systems are command economies that tell people to obey central economic plans, even if they have other ideas. Under socialism, you may wish to start a business, or you may have an idea for a new technology—too bad. You must do as you are told. Authoritarian socialism does not adapt to your wishes. Socialist economic planning depends on authoritarian measures to compel people to obey central directives. As a result, a “black economy” of smuggled goods frequently arises to meet the real needs that the central plan fails to fulfill.
Less government control and a free-market system produces an economy that is robust, competitive, and profitable. Products tend to be of a higher quality and provide for better jobs. People then determine what needs to be produced and entrepreneurs are rewarded for their ability to anticipate the needs of the people.
Socialism is simply the welfare system.
KLN
Socialist systems are command economies that tell people to obey central economic plans, even if they have other ideas. Under socialism, you may wish to start a business, or you may have an idea for a new technology—too bad. You must do as you are told. Authoritarian socialism does not adapt to your wishes. Socialist economic planning depends on authoritarian measures to compel people to obey central directives. As a result, a “black economy” of smuggled goods frequently arises to meet the real needs that the central plan fails to fulfill.
Less government control and a free-market system produces an economy that is robust, competitive, and profitable. Products tend to be of a higher quality and provide for better jobs. People then determine what needs to be produced and entrepreneurs are rewarded for their ability to anticipate the needs of the people.
Socialism is simply the welfare system.
KLN