Socialism, the Enemy of Creativity

There is understandable resentment about the governance of the western nations, but will socialism be an improvement?

The very many people, who consider creativity to be the most important facet of human existence, fear socialism. It is feared that it is anti-creativity. It is a wholly negative view of the world. It has a main objective of bringing down those who enjoy wealth and privilege. It does not plan to bring everyone else up to that level. The whole philosophy is based on taking from those that have and giving it to “the state.” A body they control and by making everybody dependent on “the state,” they perpetuate the control they have and the power they wield.

This is the primary objective of socialism. They may wrap their published political agenda in grand phrases about equality for all. To each according to their needs etc., but they always are the people who will select who is in need and what they get.

History has repeatedly shown that socialist governments censor all creative work. Their doctrine is built on such a narrow and negative platform that they cannot risk anything which allows the public any comparison to itself.

The present governments in Britain, Europe, and the US need to be improved, but adopting extreme socialism is not the way to get improvement. Human kind has depended on innovation, since they first began to be recognised as human. They did not form endless controlling committees to decide who can have fire. They did not ration the use of flint stones. They developed naturally because they welcomed innovation, welcomed the creation of new ideas. They naturally formed into collective support for inventiveness. This is why humans survived while other species died out.

The ancient Chinese developed the concepts of “Yin” and “Yang,” the concept that everything in the created universe has elements of both positive and negative built into their existence. Yin cannot exist in isolation, nor can Yang. You have have extreme domination of one or the others; and this was, and is, a bad thing. Balance is what matters. Apply these thoughts to political ideology. A mixed economy where the essentials are controlled, but not provided, by the state and all else is free market. Providing state control over the supply of essentials has always been a large problem. During wartime, the state can impose control with the acceptance of the population, but only if the public is persuaded it is a justified war. The problems really begin when the consensus provided by warfare is over. The state bureaucracy wishes to keep their privileges and powers to decide who gets what. The public learns how inefficient this type of control really is. Politicians side with the bureaucracy since they enter politics to gain control over the nation's future. They need levers of control, and those levers are the things that are essential to life and well-being.

Study history and it can be recognised that extreme views are ruinous if allowed to govern. In England, the largest of the many civil wars was between parliamentarian forces and those loyal to the royalty. The parliamentarians won and an extreme religious bigotry took control and caused untold misery and stagnated the whole nation. They too censored all arts and written works—just as the Popes, who ruled Europe in the previous years, did. Hitler and his version of national socialism, fascism, did the same when he gained power in Europe. This censorship allows corruption to grow, since no one is allowed to expose it.

In England, after several years of rule by the extreme protestant parliamentarians and after the death of its leader, Oliver Cromwell, the English land owners called back the king's successor to be head of state, to provide a check to the excessive zeal of the parliament. They made sure some control was held over the ability of the king to be absolute ruler. This was all long before universal suffrage. Long before the concept one person one vote or even that of equality was accepted. Even then the need to avoid rule by extreme views was recognised.

Time progressed and society evolved into the industrial revolution and the Victorian period of English history (1837 to 1901). Innovation and inventiveness were allowed to expand without any hindrance. Creativity, especially in engineering, flourished. Socially, and in terms of the well-being of the poor, this was a dreadful time, but for the overall wealth and prestige of the nation as a whole, it was a powerful time. The balance had been allowed to swing too far towards unfettered expansion. Gradually, the suffering and deprivations of the poor began to cause some of the powerful wealthy to demand change. Slowly change came about. In some nation's revolutions, based on socialist principles, demanded a total restructuring of political power; these did not seek balance, but only domination by those who controlled “the masses.” It is said that Karl Marx (1818 to 1883) claimed he was glad he was not a Bolshevik and it is certain that he stayed in England and did not go to Russia. It may be that he recognised that the sort of state censorship, the refusal to allow creativity practised in Socialist run countries, would never have allowed him the freedom to expand and publish his works as he was allowed to do in England. Even Karl Marx recognised socialism as the enemy of creativity.