It will be no surprise to readers to say that
collectivism is growing in the Western World. It matters little whether we
refer to it as socialism, communism, Marxism, Fabianism, totalitarianism or any
of its other names, the collectivist ideal is on the rise.
British conservatives worry over the extreme
collectivist speeches of the new Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who is far
more to the left of the former leader, Ed Miliband, yet often fail to notice
that Tory leaders are also becoming more collectivist in their rhetoric.
Certainly the incoming Prime Minister, Theresa May, is further to the left
than, say, Margaret Thatcher, yet we Britons often fail to notice that both
of the primary parties are moving further to the left.
Across the pond, in America, we witness a similar
development. Recent Democratic candidate for President Bernie Sanders is
America’s first declared socialist candidate, something that would have been
unheard of only a short while ago. In order to compete with him, the other
Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, has been forced to spout more
collectivist-sounding rhetoric to keep from losing votes to him. The many
Republican candidates, whilst railing against socialism, all supported
existing entitlements.
In Canada, the new Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau
has already sold off the country’s gold and has promised to increase
entitlements.
Interestingly, Westerners are still keen to
declare the former Soviet Union, Maoist China, fascist Italy and Nazi Germany
as oppressive totalitarian jurisdictions, and acknowledge that their leaders
ruled with a despotic iron hand, crushing the individual rights of their
downtrodden people. And yet, these same people don’t seem to recognize their own
countries’ declines into, not just the acceptance of, but the demand
for greater collectivism. They recognise that collectivism brought other
countries to their knees, yet somehow imagine that the “new” collectivism
will somehow turn out better than the old.
It might be argued that those collectivist regimes
are ancient history, and have been forgotten by the present generation, but
this is not so. The present generation of Westerners has observed the recent
declines of Argentina and Venezuela, as a result of collectivism, and
continue to witness the remnants of communist Cuba.
So, what, then, would it take for the champions of
collectivism to recognise that the “rule of the proletariat” is a false
promise – one which is sold to the masses by political leaders in order to
create totalitarianism?
Well, the answer, sad to say, is, that it’s the
nature of the proletariat in any country to prefer to believe that,
somehow, there can be a great “equalisation”, in which the wealth is taken
from the rich and redistributed to the poor. Although this will never
occur (in truth, leaders both conservative and liberal, exist for their own
benefit, not for the benefit of the people they represent), it’s the nature
of people to want to believe that there really is a tooth fairy and that
political leaders will deliver on their impossible promises.
But, if this is true, then why didn’t the Western
nations jump on board in 1917, when the Russians adopted Marxism? Or in the
1930’s when the Germans adopted Naziism?
Well, in fact, the impetus wasn’t there. In 1917,
a revolution had taken place in Russia, yet a provisional government
continued the war with Germany. Tens of thousands of Russian troops deserted.
Vladimir Lenin stepped into the vacuum in April, promising an immediate
withdrawal if his Bolsheviks could be handed the reins of power. By October,
the Bolsheviks had seized power and signed the Decree on Peace.
In Germany, the economy collapsed in 1923, as a
result of the economically impossible conditions of the Treaty of Versailles.
Again, a would-be leader, this time Adolf Hitler, saw the opening for someone
to step in and offer a collectivist panacea. He rose to the position of
dictator quickly, as a result.
The pattern has also been true in other countries.
Certainly, Fidel Castro rode in on the economic and social oppression of his
predecessor, Fulgencio Batista.
Hugo Chavez was also regarded as a saviour, as a
result of his predecessor, Rafael Caldera, under whose leadership an economic
crisis occurred. The collapse of Venezuelan banks bankrupted seventy thousand
companies and destroyed the savings of countless Venezuelans. The Chavez
“tripartite” - a collectivist solution - was adopted and the desperate
Venezuelans welcomed Chavez and collectivism as “the answer.”
But, why did the UK, Canada, the US and other
countries of the “Free World” not go collectivist at these times? Well,
conditions may at times have been difficult there, too, but not so dire as in
those countries that turned to collectivism.
As former American President Herbert Hoover stated
in 1952,
“Every collectivist revolution rides in on a
Trojan horse of emergency. It was a tactic of Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini.”
And so it goes. When the banks have collapsed and
the people are starving, the people will turn to whatever fairy tale is
promised as a solution. (This is further exacerbated, if the country is in
the midst of a major war.)
Today, Westerners are viewing the economic
collapse of their countries just coming over the rise and into view. They are
also facing the inclination of their leaders (both conservative and liberal)
to dive in at the deep end, of what may well become the next world war. They
see their future drying up, as their lifestyles are diminishing, with no hope
on the horizon for conditions to improve. When this happens, it’s easy to
convince a people that their situation was caused by “the rich” and that a
collectivist leadership will make it possible for a return to good times, by
taking the wealth from the rich and “giving it back” to the proletariat.
So, when will they learn? Actually, they rarely
do. In Argentina, after each economic collapse caused by the Perónsand their successors, there was
a brief fiscal conservative trend, yet the proletariat, even then, still
believed in the collectivist ideal. After just a few years
of belt-tightening, they again demanded that the entitlements expand. All
that was needed was a new collectivist politician, who would claim, “There
was nothing wrong with the collectivist ideal, we just need to get it right
this time.”
What we can learn from this is that, once a people
becomes convinced that it’s their right to have their government take
from another group of people and give to them, they will remain committed to
the concept that the system is both just and possible. They will therefore
repeatedly gravitate to those prospective leaders who promise largesse to
them, at the expense of others.
As Edward Gibbon stated in the late 18th
century, on the death of the Athenian republic,
"In the end, more than freedom,
they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all –
security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give
to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished foremost
was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never
free again."
As Thomas Jefferson said, at that time,
“The democracy will cease to exist when you
take away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who would
not.”
Once the belief in collectivism tops 50% in any
nation, odds are that the trajectory will continue downward, for the lifetime
of the observer. Fortunately, the world is never without choices – alternate
jurisdictions that may offer greater freedoms. In any age there are
jurisdictions that are on the rise, as others go into decline.
|
|
Jeff Thomas is British and resides in the Caribbean. The son of an
economist and historian, he learned early to be distrustful of governments
as a general principle. Although he spent his career creating and
developing businesses, for eight years, he penned a weekly newspaper column
on the theme of limiting government. He began his study of economics around
1990, learning initially from Sir John Templeton, then Harry Schulz and
Doug Casey and later others of an Austrian persuasion. He is now a regular
feature writer for Casey Research’s International Man and Strategic Wealth
Preservation in the Cayman Islands.
|
The author is not affiliated with, endorsed or sponsored by Sprott Money
Ltd. The views and opinions expressed in this material are those of the
author or guest speaker, are subject to change and may not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Sprott Money Ltd. Sprott Money does not guarantee the
accuracy, completeness, timeliness and reliability of the information or any
results from its use.
