As argued in the first part of this essay, socialists and liberals continue to have faith in the theory of socialism despite its history of failure so how can this faith be explained? One way to ascertain the explanation is to examine those societies that are either applying this theory or have tried to apply it for common attributes.
First of all Socialism is an economic system that is imposed upon a people by the enactment of laws. The socialist would argue that this was necessary in order to assure the equality of economic outcome. Fairness is the virtue that a socialist would use to declare its morality. Marx described fairness when he declared his famous quote, “From each in accordance to his ability, to each in accordance to his needs.”
1. This would imply the need of it being accepted by the people on a universal level. It is a concept that requires self-sacrifice for the needs of others in the name of fairness. Self-interest and greed would not be allowed and those who sought to satisfy their self-interest would have to be eliminated from that society for they would be seen as someone who would take unfair advantage of others. They would also identify themselves as being a greedy person.
2. This would also imply that justice be defined along these same lines. It assumes equality exists among all individuals. Therefore where inequality is seen then that proves a biased or prejudicial cause. And when this occurs an injustice has been committed and laws need to be enacted to address this injustice.
3. It is a theory of collectivism which declares that the collective is responsible for the success of the individuals of that collective. This would implicitly declare that individuals are not responsible for what they be or do. This, in turn, would implicitly declare that any individual who holds to a position of status should consider himself a privileged person because it was the collective that has the right to determine who holds that position. Thus, this makes the individual a servant of the collective by the terms of this theory.
4. It is, by the nature of the premises explicitly used, a positive sum economic theory. Its advocates would argue that any other form of economics is a zero sum type of economics theory. It is a theory that places value upon a person’s being rather than upon his abilities.
5. Since it is an altruistic theory then it must be declared that the collective can do no wrong. And any individual who holds to this theory must be looked upon as being a righteous person. For what collective could be declared as being wrong in seeking to satisfy of the needs of each and every individual within that collective? And how could you define any individual as being anything but righteous who adheres to and seeks to implement this theory?
6. It is a theory that views any collective as being a homogeneous collective. Thus, in a society of multiple collectives inequality will exist and one collective will be the dominant collective and the other/s will be the victims of that inequality.
7. Rights are an attribute of the collective not of the individual thus if an injustice is perceived as being done to one of the collective then it is assumed that same unjust act would be done to each and every other member of that collective. It is also assumed that every member of the offending collective is just as guilty of that injustice as the individual who actually did the injustice for all members of any collective are of one mindset.
So, in closing, I can only add one thing. Keep that quote of Marx in mind whenever you hear the word fairness in the political argument of a person. That word alone will declare implicitly that you are hearing the argument of socialism. It is the common thread of every form of a socialism and the economics that is used to support it.