Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy comments on a post by economist Bryan Caplan explaining three competing theories to explain the oppressive nature of socialism.
Lord Acton and F.A. Hayek have inspired the two most popular explanations for the crimes of actually-existing socialism. While Acton never lived to see socialists gain power, their behavior seems to perfectly illustrate his aphorism that, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” For all their idealism, even socialists will do bad things if left unchecked. Hayek, with the benefit of hindsight, suggested a slightly different explanation: Under socialism, “the worst get on top.” On this theory, the idealistic founders of socialism were gradually pushed out by brutal cynics as their movement’s power increased.
[Eugen] Richter’s novel [Pictures of the Socialist Future] advances a very different explanation for socialism’s “moral decay”: The movement was born bad. While the early socialists were indeed “idealists,” their ideal was totalitarian. Their overriding goals were to engineer a new society and a New Socialist Man. If this meant treating workers like slaves — depriving them of the freedom to choose their occupation or location, forbidding them to quit, splitting up families without their consent, and imposing draconian punishments on dissenters — so be it.
The three theories aren’t mutually exclusive. All of them may have some validity. Still, the evidence supports “born bad” much more than the others. Acton and Hayek’s theories both imply that there should be a significant time lag between the time when the socialists take power and the start of really serious oppression. Even if absolute power corrupts absolutely, it doesn’t do so immediately. Similarly, it takes time for the “idealistic founders” to be replaced by “brutal cynics.”
In actual fact, however, massive oppression usually begins almost immediately after socialist regimes take over. The Cheka (forerunner of the KGB), the Gulag system, and other major instruments of socialist oppression in the USSR were all established by the communists in 1918, just weeks or months after they seized power. During the same period, they also began their first and extremely brutal effort to collectivize agriculture — which ended up in the murder and starvation of millions of peasants. Unlike some of their other oppressive measures, collectivization (the early Bolshevik policy that cost the most lives) could not be rationalized as a mere response to the exigencies of the Russian Civil War; indeed, it actually impeded the Bolshevik war effort. All this was done by idealists like Lenin and Trotsky, not by their more “cynical” successors. Moreover, these idealists had not yet had much time to be corrupted by power …
One reason why these competing theories matter is that we want to better understand the past. But a more pressing reason is that the debate over socialism isn’t over. Some still argue that the system could work if it were headed by more idealistic leaders or was more democratic. The validity of the “born bad” theory stands the idealism argument on its head. More idealistic leadership leads to more oppression in socialist regimes, not less. “Born bad” also weakens the democracy argument. If socialism inherently requires massive coercion and repression, any socialist system is unlikely to stay democratic for long.
The “born bad” theory seems to make the most sense to me, although the dominance of the other two factors may influence how the socialist state in question develops. Socialism at its core is morally corrupt, as it depends upon using deadly force to impel people to comply with a political and economic structure that is dictated and controlled by a powerful central authority. Despite all cries of “political freedom” and “dictatorship of the proletariat,” socialism really comes down to one basic concept: a powerful central authority dictates the actions and beliefs of everyone according to its own agenda. I can’t imagine how anything could be born less bad.
I also like Somin’s argument regarding the “idealists” — the more idealistic a socialist authority is, the more likely it is to believe that it and it alone can create a true utopia, which will justify any brutality in order to establish its ideal state.