A reader of my Frederick Douglass book writes to say,
"He also rejected the popular ideas of the time that were opposed to individual liberty, particularly socialism."
From one point of view it could be said that, notwithstanding the actions of many "communists" who have given socialism a bad name, true socialists have been staunch opponents of slavery, some of them having turned to socialism after being rejected by classical liberals for their anti-slavery and anti-war beliefs.
An example of one such socialist is Edmund Dene Morel, a man who originally seemed to identify as a Liberal, in the classical sense of his time period, identifying as a socialist only after he realized that he did not fit in with the Liberals. Morel campaigned for years against the enslavement of the Congolese by King Leopold II. He also opposed World War I, which is when he broke with the Liberals, who were staunch supporters of the war.
Emile Vandervelde, leader of the Belgian socialists, was asked by Morel to send an honest Belgian lawyer to defend to anti-slavery missionaries in the Congo. Vandervelde went himself to do the deed himself, and spoke most eloquently.
Repeatedly, it has been socialists, or people who later became socialists, who have stood in solidarity with the Congolese people in their fight for freedom.
Libertarian websites, in contrast, appear to have only good things to say about the automobile industry that grew so much off of the enslavement of the Congolese for rubber.
It could be said that libertarians are, on the whole far, more opposed to individual liberty than any true socialist.
My response:
Well, I suppose all sorts of stupid and false things "could be said," but they remain stupid and false.
Douglass was right to see that socialism posed a risk of enslaving all of mankind instead of just one race, and Frederic Holland's warning about what would happen if it were attempted on a national scale proved correct. "True socialism" is, of course, a fantasy concocted by enemies of liberty to excuse the inevitable results that have flowed from their doctrine ever since their advent--and, no doubt, every time a socialist country degenerates into the typical symptoms of chaos and tyranny, they will continue to deploy that worn, pathetic excuse, "That's not true socialism"--like some hallucinating patient in his death throes insisting "This isn't true syphillis."
But the reality of the matter is that slavery is, as its great advocate George Fitzhugh called it, the truest form of socialism, because it subordinates the individual to the interests of others, and compels him to work for others' benefit. Socialists may indeed, for pragmatic and tactical reasons, take stands against particular incidents of slavery, just as one religious sect boldly opposes the cruel religious establishment that oppresses the natives of some foreign land--not, indeed, because they believe in liberty, but because they desire the opportunity to oppress those people themselves, without competition from their rivals. The true doctrine of liberty, as Douglass rightly saw, is that each person be free from compulsion, to live his own life for his own sake on his own terms, without being subordinated to the interests of anyone else, and free to enjoy the fruits of his labors in freedom.
Now, please, don't go telling me that that's what "True Socialism" is about. I've heard it all before.
Comments policy