Socialism, The Welfare State, and "Social Justice"

"[M]any of the old socialists have discovered that we have already drifted so far in the direcetion of a redistributive state that it now appears much easier to push further in that direction than to press for the somewhat discredited socialization of the means of production.  They seem to have recognized that by increasing governmental control of what nominally remains private industry, they can more easily achieve that redistribution of incomes that had been the real aim of the more spectacular policy of expropriation." F.A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (1960)

Since the 2008 election the words "socialism" and "socialist" have been tossed around somewhat regularly.  The more ardent opponents of President Obama and the Democrat Congress contend that a socialist agenda is being heaved upon us.  Supporters and apologists of the president agenda respond there is no such agenda to be founds.

I think F.A. Hayek would say both parties are wrong, and both are correct.

In "The Decline of Socialism and The Rise of The Welfare State" (chapter 17 of of The Constitution of Liberty and the origin of the above quote), Hayek strikes out an important difference between the original aim of socialism and the means by which socialists sought to secure that goal.

"The common aim of all socialist movements was the nationalization of the 'means of production, distribution, and exchange,' so that all economic activity might be directed according to a comprehensive plan toward some ideal of social justice." [Emphasis added.]

One will not hear many public advocates for the outright state ownership of industry, and even the more noted progressive apologists dismiss such calls.   Cries for "social justice," however, can be heard not infrequently, both in churches and in public policy circles:


Like other illusive terms, "social justice" can mean a host of things.  Listening closely to the Left, however, betrays that "social justice" is the newest catchphrase for the old aim of socialism: the arbitrary redistribution of wealth in pursuit of a progressive vision of a more just society.

Back to Hayek for a moment.

As Hayek goes on to explain, the Soviet totalitarian style of the outright state ownership of production and arbitrary distribution of welfare disillusioned and even alarmed Western socialist intellectuals.  The socialist George Orwell, for example, went to great literary lengths to awaken society to the dangers of unlimited state authority in his classic work, 1984, arming opponents of big government with the powerful image of Big Brother watching and directing the every move of citizens.

The freedom-crushing, authoritarian means of pursuing some notion of "social justice" was discredited, but the end of redistribution of wealth and creating society in the image of some new progressive order did not go away with it.   Enter "social justice." Rather, the ongoing, peaceful increase in government control of marginally free market enterprise seemed the best new means to the old ends of socialism.

In 1960, when Hayek made these observations, the old socialist ends seemed achievable within the web of FDR-style centralized bureaucratic control of the economy that did not disappear after the Great Depression was ushered into the history books.

Ever since then, we've witnessed an ongoing quasi-central planning of the economy through government regulation of the market.  After all, why go through the ugly mess of taking over industries and entire markets when you're in a position to dictate the direction and, in many cases, the outcome of market activity through the regulatory apparatus of government?

With the GM bailout making the government its majority share holder, the current administration has come close to the old socialist means of taking over the production and direction of a significant part of our economy.  But remember it was Bush II that initiated the bailout before he left office.

What the current administration is certainly poised to do is achieve the old socialist aim of redistributing wealth in service of progressive visions of social justice through simply increasing the regulation of our economy and lives.  We cannot blame Obama for the bureaucratic network that was in place before he ever took office.  Republican and Democrat presidents and congresses of the past seventy years are to blame for that.

So, yes and no.  The current party in power is pursuing socialist goals.  But they are not employing the old socialist methods of doing so.   Proposing the state ownership of all the economy would be too hard a sale to the American public.

What the American public would find equally unattractive is the end result of incrementally wedding our economic futures to the size, scope, and discretion of a government that has a hand in most all of our lives.  With government control of the housing market through Fannie and Freddie and health care  control through the maze of new Obamacare regulations, we are on our way to some wider and deeper progressive vision of social justice.  Cap and Trade would push us further down that path.

We need to put politicians in a place to make that socialist sales pitch openly.  Then we need to keep on shopping.