I've started reading another interesting book.  This one is called "A Conservative History of the American Left" by Daniel J Flynn.  I think he should have left "Conservative" out of the title as this book should be required reading for every liberal that's going to the House or Senate at both the state and federal levels.  The book is just a good solid history of the development of the ideology and the many failed socialist commune experiments. At least as far as I've gotten in it.

So what brought on this interest?  I think it's been cogitating in my brain since the Obama vs. Joe the Plumber incident during the election. Obama said he wants to use tax policy to "redistribute the wealth."  That phrase really struck a chord.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."  Have you heard that?  It's generally attributed to Karl Marx, but is actually from Louis Blanc in his 1840 publication "The Organization of Work."

Anyway, this is the same principle as Obama's wealth redistribution.  I'm sure some of you will argue this point, but you'd be wrong.  Obama wants higher taxes on those that make a lot of money, those that produce.  He then wants to distribute this money to those that don't make much (if anything) at all.  Simple concept really.  And quite the romantic notion.  That's the problem with Socialism.  It's a very romantic notion.

Imagine all of society living together in harmony. Everyone working together toward a common goal, the betterment of society. Individual interests are put aside. No more greed, avarice, crime, sin.  Everyone works for society. Quite a notion, isn't it? It's easy to see why the American Left is so taken with it. Not to mention so many High School and College age kids. It's such a simple matter to suspend thought and function on the emotion of the ideal. But there are a few problems...

The biggest is that it ignores the natural human sense of self. In order for one of these societies to succeed, everyone has to work for the betterment of the society. No one works for themselves. In order for that to happen, the sense of self has to go by the wayside. No desires, no ego, no self, no motivation, no thought. Just work for the group. How simple.

Anyone that maintains a sense of self will rapidly realize that they don't actually have to do any work to be fed or housed. The rest of society will continue to work. You have to realize that this is a necessary evil. So what happens with them? You can't kick them out of the society. They'll continue to be parasites. This leaves only three options.

First option - admit that the ideal is a failure and disband it. Restore sense of self and people will start working for themselves.  But no, that will never happen. Those in charge (and there has to be someone or some group in charge) won't allow for the admission of failure. Instead...

Option 2 - force them to work. So now your perfect little society starts to bleed. There's now a police force whose job it is to force slackers back to work. This is the beginning of the end for the ideal. Now there is a police force. There is also someone (or some elite group) in charge. They have a police force at their disposal. Can you see where this is going?  Do I really need to spell out the necessary and resultant oppression and ultimate ugly failure of the society?

Option 3 - Conscript them all into a military force and use it to set out to conquer your neighbors and loot them to continue to fund the slackers, and now the military, and now the police force that is required in order to support the military in the populace. This ends up the same as option 2. Oppression at a vast level followed eventually by a complete disintegration of the system.

There are many, many real life examples of the failure of Socialism throughout history. Communist Russia just being a recent one. New Harmony, Indiana, started by Robert Owen in 1825. Failed in June 1827. Charles Fourier was the intellectual behind the Fourierism and the Brook Farm Commune in 1843. This lasted until 1855.  Quite a bit longer than New Harmony.  However, Brook Farm took applications and you had to buy in. They intentionally weeded out the undesirables. They also solicited donations from outside as they were unable to become self-sufficient. It still failed. The Kibbutz is another example. But they fail as well unless the inhabitants work outside the collective and return a portion of their earnings to the collective.

There is also a wonderful example of a perfect Socialist society in Star Trek, of all places. The Borg. They are a commune of peoples that are part biological and part mechanical/computerized. This allows the collective brain to subdue individual thought and force submission to the Collective. Removal of the Borg implants and some education results in restoration of sense of self.

Small communes based on Socialist principles have sprung up and failed ever since. They start up under the best of intentions and then fail as the reality sinks in. Those that last the longest, survive on donations from the outside, not as a result of the work done on the inside. Human nature doesn't allow for the suspension of the sense of self. Human nature doesn't allow for external motivation. You work because you want to. When you no longer want to, you don't work or do a very poor job of it. Or you have to be forced to work through the threat of pain or imprisonment.

Ayn Rand wrote some novels about this. Atlas Shrugged and Anthem delved into Socialism. Interesting reads if you haven't read them. They are excellent intellectual exercises.

All that said, there does exist the perfect Socialist ideal. In nature, not in human society. Ant Colonies and Bee Hives.  Each worker has no self, they all work for the group. Take a good hard look at an ant colony going about its business one day. There is no entertainment, no fun, no self. They are robotic, only work for the colony and to feed the young to make a bigger colony. Does this look like an existence that you'd like? It's the ultimate Socialist ideal, but is unachievable for humans.