Materialism and Socialism

    We often hear about how Capitalists are materialistic, but it is my intention to prove in this article that Socialism is, in fact, the ultimate materialistic ideology. Toward this end, let us first define Materialism:

(Taken from www.dictionary.com:)
    ma•te•ri•al•ism n.
    1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
    2. The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life.
    3. A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns.
    For our purposes, we will concern ourselves with the second definition (#2 in bold). Also, there are many various incarnations of Capitalism, but for our purposes we shall understand “Capitalism” to mean laissez-faire Capitalism.

    First, let us examine the primary concerns of each ideology:

Laissez-faire:
    Primary concerns are individual freedom and the limitation of government power to interfere in private affairs. Government’s only role is to secure the peace and protect property rights. The initiation of force is prohibited to all parties, including government. Force is only legitimate in the defense of rights. The prohibition of the initiation of force and the preservation of individual rights is paramount, all other concerns are secondary.

Socialism:
    Primary concerns are the distribution of wealth and the material circumstances of “the people”. Coercive force of law is a legitimate means by which wealth and property can be “re-appropriated” (confiscated by threat of force) for the “good of the community”. Government (“community”) control of the means of production and “economic justice” (meaning the forced equal distribution of material wealth) are of primary importance. All other concerns (including individual freedom) are subordinate to these primary concerns.
    Now given this comparative break-down of these two ideologies, it is readily apparent to the writer (and hopefully the reader) that material wealth is given much more emphasis in Socialism than in Laissez-faire Capitalism. Material wealth is only one of countless possible pursuits within the Laissez-faire system. But the acquisition of wealth is not an objective of Laissez-faire, but rather the preservation of rights and the non-initiation of force.

    By contrast, Socialism’s primary function is to control the creation and distribution of wealth. Indeed in revolutionary Socialism it is even permissible (even encouraged) to take people’s lives through violent force who do now bow to the ideals of the forced confiscation of their property. Again, contrast this with Laissez-faire Capitalism’s prohibition of the initiation of force. Were Capitalism as materialistic as Socialism, it would condone the use of force and the taking of life in one’s pursuit for wealth. But it does the opposite. The concept of property rights alone prohibits one party from forcibly taking the property of another.

    It would appear that Socialism is a much better fit for the accepted definition of materialism.

    Let us further summarize what we have found here:
       Capitalism: Freedom through the absence of force.
       Socialism: Material equality by means of force.

    “Who you callin’ materialist?”