socialism:(1) the theory or system of the ownership and operation of the means of production and distribution by society or the community rather than by private individuals, with all members of the community sharing in the work and the products; (2) in communist doctrine, the stage of society coming between the capitalist stage and the communist stage, in which private ownership of the means of production and distribution has been eliminated.

--- Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary

(Mr. Metz is president and leader of Freedom Party)

"So what's wrong with socialism?" is a question that I've been asked more than once since the majority election of Bob Rae and his socialist New Democratic Party.

Normally, an inquisitive question of this nature would not bother me, but the people who ask me this most often are invariably those who voted for socialism. So now it bothers me. Suddenly, the urgency that more of us learn to recognize socialism and its self- destructive consequences has become clear.

Sad but true, on September 6, 1990, an official majority of Ontario voters finally got angry and frustrated enough with their lack of options at the polls to push all of us from the frying pan into the fires --- of socialism --- regrettably the only direction available to those who vote on the "vote against" principle. Though polls showed that voters saw high taxes as the number one election issue, in "protest" against the suddenly unpopular Peterson government, they nevertheless voted for the one party that repeatedly promised them it would raise taxes and increase government spending: the New Democratic Party of Ontario.

Now, when it comes to raising taxes and increasing government spending, I have every confidence that the New Democrats will honor their election commitments, just as their two predecessors, the Liberals and the Conservatives, so faithfully did during their respective reigns. After all, the September 6 Ontario election has produced no real change in government at Queen's Park --- merely a change in the major players. The leader whose party has long been the philosophical guiding light for the policies instituted by Conservatives and Liberals has merely assumed his proper role, one that offers the recognition due him. Meet Bob Rae --- Ontario's first official socialist head of government.

Like it or not, socialism's face is about to become much more visible in Ontario, even though most voters still aren't quite sure just what "socialism" is or why they should be bothered by it. To them, socialism is just some nebulous label that politicians use to belittle one another (even though they may all behave the same and pursue the same policies), and thus "socialism", as an understandable concept, has little or no relevance to the average voter's daily concerns and daily life.

But socialism is real, and like a slow growing cancer that ultimately destroys its host, socialism will ultimately destroy any society that practises its immoral policy of continually robbing Peter to pay Paul. It matters not how "well-meaning', " sincere", or "visionary" socialist ideals purport to be: the fact of the matter is that it is the coercively redistributive nature of socialism (as opposed to the dynamically free and creative nature of capitalism) that makes socialism an economic, politicial, and social evil.

Socialism is the political application of the philosophy of egalitarianism. Socialist "equality" does not mean "equality before the law" (which is the capitalist interpretation of equality) --- it means the precise opposite. It means equality of result. It means that those who work hard, take risks, and produce the goods, services, and products upon which a society's survival depends, must be punished to the degree of their success, while those who do not fit into the productive class (for whatever reason) are to be rewarded by sharing in the products they had no part in creating.

To many, socialism sounds like the "workers paradise" espoused by Marx and Lenin --- a world where "need" will ultimately be eliminated and where effort will no longer be required to sustain oneself. But socialism is the classic example of a plan that "looks good in theory but doesn't work in practice", because socialism has never worked anywhere its been tried. It is a short-term political system that depends upon taxing the populace to the point of subsistence and borrowing against the future to produce a temporary illusion of a society that can exist without effort.

Pragmatically, socialism amounts to little more than a highly-organized and bureaucratized political effort to self-destruct. Of course, self- destruction is never the stated intention of socialism, but because socialism is based on false principles, self - destruction can be the only possible result.

Economically, socialism is functionally illiterate, relying solely on state coercion to confiscate the earned wealth of some for the unearned benefit of others. "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods" are two commandments routinely violated by socialism --- and elevated to the point of virtue.

True socialists view successful and prosperous people as "exploiters" --- of labor, of the environment, of the poor, whatever --- and hold them morally responsible for whatever unpleasant or unfortunate conditions others may find themselves in from time to time, simply on the grounds of comparing economic incomes. With their redistributive mentalities, socialists do not understand that success and prosperity can only be earned (i.e., voluntarily on a free market) and that their endless coercive programs of wealth distribution and rights distribution do more harm than good --- particularly to those they pretend to help.

For socialists, business and enterprise exist primarily for the purpose of creating jobs and providing a tax base for government spending and welfare, not for the capitalist purpose of creating affordable products and services for as many people as possible. Socialists hate "the bottom line", and fear the responsibility that a "bottom line" would impose on them.

Being parasitic in nature, socialism is forced to cling to capitalism, recognizing that without the creative and productive energies of capitalism, socialism will have no wealth to redistribute.

Consequently, "progressive" socialists now advocate the mixed-economy", a euphemism to justify the parasitic relationship between socialism and capitalism, between totalitarianism and freedom.

Morally, socialism is mob rule. Socialists believe that any matter of human concern is fair game for the political "vote", and that the protection of individual rights, particularly private property rights (i.e., protection from mob rule), amounts to one of the two extremes of either "fascism" or anarchy".

True socialists do not believe in freedom of choice, even though they frequently abuse the term; what they really believe in is free choice. "Abortions should not only be permitted legally," argue socialists, "but they should be paid for by taxpayers." Which in practice means: forcing people who may find abortion offensive and immoral to pay for the abortions of others. So goes the tired collectivist ethic. Freedom with responsibility is simply out of the question for socialists, since that would mean capitalism; socialists want freedom without responsibility.

If socialists fear the "bottom line" in business and economics, then you can bet that they're terrified at hearing the "bottom line" on socialist philosophy and ethics. Because the bottom line is this: Socialism advocates and implements the use of force (i.e., totalitarianism) to achieve social and political ends; it despises voluntarism and consent (i.e., freedom) as a means to achieve those ends.

Nothing could illustrate this more clearly than the socialist attitude towards welfare. Socialists want government to be the first agency of resort, rather than the last. Socialists decry the existence of food banks and cite the failings of capitalism as the cause for their necessity. Yet, a food bank is a capitalist response to poverty and helping the needy. How can socialists possibly justify, at a time when government welfare spending has reached an all-time high, spending even more tax dollars on welfare --- simply to replace a non- coercive, voluntary system of welfare aid that is already directly responding to a community need? The answer is simple: they can't.

You see, it's not the plight of the needy and disadvantaged that disgusts socialists when they see a food bank. It's the idea that capitalism is doing the job that socialism can't. Make no mistake about it. It's pure envy we're looking at, not a concern for the poor, when socialist politicians talk about eliminating private responses to public needs.

"People are poor", preaches socialism, "because greedy capitalists have been exploiting them for untold centuries." Not only is this simply not true, it's been my experience to observe that for the most part, people are poor not because of what others have done "to" them, but because of what they haven't done for themselves.

"Poverty", as such (i.e., a lack of material wealth), is the natural state of social existence simply because it requires no effort to achieve it. Poverty is certainly not caused by those who choose to elevate themselves above it. (However, poverty does become visible when there is wealth created with which to compare it: it is the visibility factor that causes perception-bound socialists to view the creation of wealth by some as the cause of poverty by others.) Contrary to socialist redistributive dogma, the elimination of poverty can only come about through the creation of wealth, which requires intelligence, initiative, risk, effort, hard work --- and a response to public need that no government could ever dare to match.

To illustrate the socialist mentality towards poverty, consider, for example, two castaways on a deserted island, Peter and Paul. While Paul chooses to wait to be "saved", Peter plants a garden, builds a hut, and saves his produce for harder times. Begrudgingly, Peter shares some small percentage of his produce to keep Paul from starving, but gives Paul no more than is necessary to save him from starvation. Paul has no hut, no stored food, and no means of production (i.e., a garden) to produce more food.

Now, a socialist would view this situation and the first thing he would see would be an economic disparity inequality! "Good grief! Peter is wealthy while Paul exists in poverty! And poor Paul must rely on charity for his subsistence! A social injustice!"

So instead of properly condemning Paul for failing to take responsibility for his own survival, a socialist would morally condemn Peter for being productive, and for not being concerned enough with the plight of Paul. It is understandable that socialists must do this. In order to justify robbing Peter to pay Paul, it is important that socialists morally denigrate Peter. After all, robbing Peter for his virtue might even offend a socialist! Thus, it is a pre-requisite of socialism that productivity and the creation of wealth be viewed in a negative moral light.

Is it any wonder that socialism is a failure both in theory and in practice?

Try as he might, NDP premier Bob Rae cannot long avoid the public recognition that he is even more a socialist than his Liberal and Conservative predecessors and that socialism is the road away from freedom and prosperity, not towards it.

Lord knows, he's certainly been hard at work trying to allay public fears of socialism, mainly by trying not to appear socialist and by publicly distancing himself from the philosophy that so obviously motivates him. With the help of a media that is as blind to socialism as is the general public, Rae may even have some degree of success in maintaining his illusion of being a "moderate" --- for a while.

But you can bet that Rae's agenda will continue to be a socialist one, even though he has assured Ontarians that an NDP government will not proceed to implement its policies in a "revolutionary" manner, and you can bet that we'll all be paying the price.

"Contrary to what alarmists predict", says a September 29 London Free Press newspaper feature on the NDP transition to power, "we're likely to see only a gradual change in the province's political landscape. After all, Rae is a moderate and democratic socialist --- not a revolutionary."

So what? Isn't it obvious that Rae doesn't have to be a "revolutionary" to implement socialist policies? He simply has to continue the work already begun by the two political giants who preceded him: Liberal Premier David Peterson and Conservative Premier Bill Davis, whose lack of philosophical integrity and principle made them totally vulnerable to the false allure of socialism's promises. After all, it's not a "revolutionary" approach that is to be feared (since revolution is a much slower process than most suspect, and is precisely what we've been experiencing in this country today) --- it is socialism itself that is to be feared.

But Ontarians do not fear socialism, simply because they do not know how to recognize it, having lived in the mixed economy of socialism's shadow for many, many years now. Ironically, they have been conditioned to blame all the failings of our social system on the only part of it that still works ---- the capitalist part, and to credit our still relatively high standard of living on that part of our social system that seeks to destroy our standard of living --- socialism.

As you can see, a "mixed" economy leads to a "mixed-up" understanding of which political system does work (capitalism) and which one doesn't (socialism). But voters are not entirely to blame. In this respect, much of the blame must be accepted by our media, since the information it gives to voters only serves to confuse them even further. A typical example of failing to identify the distinguishing characteristics of socialism is to be found in the same newspaper article to which I have already referred:

"There is an obvious diversity under the grand umbrella of socialism, which flowered during the massive dislocations caused by the Industrial Revolution," continues the Free Press newspaper feature belatedly titled Turning Left. "Common threads include egalitarianism and collectivism (the antithesis of capitalism's individualism and acquisitiveness), policies to address the inequities produced by capitalism, and intervention in the marketplace by public ownership and/or regulation."

What David Mauchan, the author of the article, fails to include under his "diversity under the grand umbrella of socialism" is this: Liberals and Conservatives. Without exception, both advocate "egalitarianism and collectivism"; both support policies to address the "inequities produced by capitalism", and both support "intervention in the marketplace by public ownership and/or regulation". Ontario is not a "capitalist" province that has suddenly "turned left" in its ideology; Ontario "turned left" over half a century ago. What Mauchan should have been asking himself was this: how have Liberals and Conservatives managed to avoid being labelled socialist for this long?

Ironically, Rae has already made it a point to remind delegates to the Financial Post's Business Outlook 1991 conference, in response to "fear-mongering" from conservative elements, that previous Ontario Liberal and Conservative administrations borrowed heavily from NDP social policy platforms during minority governments over the past two decades. And Nelson Wiseman, a political scientist at the University of Toronto commented, "I think what's going to surprise people here is not how different the (NDP) government is, but how broadly similar it is to other governments."

In more ways than one. Considering Rae's promise to guard against political arrogance, I cannot conceive of any statement more arrogant than the one he uttered in the September 17 issue of Maclean's magazine. In a moral condemnation of the very business community upon whom all of his own policies depend, Rae declared: "I feel that business has never done a terrific job of living up to its social responsibility. I know I am going to get a lot of lectures from business about the way the world works. Let me return the favor and say that if the business community would come up with some solutions to some of the major social problems of the day, there would be grounds for a real dialogue. The view that governments can do things about poverty and social problems while business is occupied solely with its own bottom line is too narrow a vision. That is something that needs to change."

Rae's comments actually go beyond simple arrogance ---they admit to the inherent failure of socialism and to the inherent success of capitalism. To suggest that business, that sector of society which already pays the largest chunk of taxes in this country --- taxes that governments spend to "do things about poverty and social problems" --- should not be concerned "solely with its own bottom line" is a suggestion beyond the ludicrous. If anything, Rae's putting the pressure on to make business even more concerned with protecting its bottom line. How does Rae expect business to continue supporting taxes without occupying itself with the bottom line? How else can business pay the taxes, the employees, the creditors, the bankers?

In a classic display of Orwellian "doublethink", Rae is boldly telling the business community that it has "nothing to fear" from his government, yet he has promised higher taxes, increased minimum wages, forced pay equity, a minimum corporate income tax, and the provision of "anti- scab" legislation, not to mention his ludicrous suggestion that business should be less concerned with its bottom line. There is absolutely no connection between Rae's ideas and the concretes necessary to implement them.

Indeed, Rae just may get what he wants; if he carries out his threat (or rather, follows through with his political promises), businesses will have to become concerned with "poverty and social problems" --- their own!

Like all socialists, what Rae fails to comprehend (or refuses to acknowledge) is that the "bottom line" is the measurement of a business's "social" responsibility. The socialist ideal of putting "people before profits" is a blatant contradiction in terms since people cannot survive without profits. Profit is, after all, the intended consequence of all productive human endeavour. And since governments can only tax the profits of businesses, the advocacy of "people before profits" is ludicrous even from the socialist's myopic point of view. Why on earth would any sane person want to discourage the very profits he intends to confiscate? But then, of course, socialism is not a rational system.

Socialism is a political form of self-destructive irrationalism that has always been a part of the philosophy of the New Democrats, but which has also invaded the philosophies of Conservatives and Liberals alike.

The sooner more of us wake up to this fact, the better. New Democrats, Liberals, and Conservatives are all the same, because they all suffer from the same social disease socialism.

It was socialism that voters protested against during the last Ontario election (and in the election before that), not against "Liberalism" or "Conservatism", two terms which no longer have any meaning. It was Liberals and Conservatives who betrayed us all to socialism, and now all of us will be forced to pay the price --- until we learn to recognize the disease that is killing us softly with its song.

One more time: It's called socialism, and it's what we have now in Ontario.

Like it or not.

We need a new choice, now.

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002