According to the late economist Joseph A. Schumpeter, "a socialist form of society will inevitably emerge from an equally inevitable decomposition of capitalist society." He further stated: "The capitalist order tends to destroy itself and centralist socialism is ... a likely heir apparent."
In the sequence of modern history, no trend could be more significant for the fate of humanity than the trend toward socialism. Those who think socialism has been intellectually discredited and politically defeated have misunderstood a game where reversals are frequent as victories are undone by the subtlety of the defeated. One may admit that socialism's deficiencies are obvious to the intelligent observer. But legislatures are not made of such stuff. One may admit that socialism has "failed" wherever, whenever and to whatever extent it is practiced. Yet socialism has nonetheless tunneled its way into every Western country, into every state system. The economic disadvantages of socialism are hardly an obstacle to socialism's advance. Political battles are won by superior strategy, not by economic advantage. The capitalists invest their time and effort into business. The enemies of capitalism invest their time and effort into unraveling capitalism. This is not a level playing field.
If you want to predict the future, taking the longest view possible, you have to begin by admitting the cold hard facts of the case. Socialism has been advancing for 100 years while capitalism has compromised and retreated. Why has this happened? Because capitalism's success has, in the words of Schumpeter, "[Created an] atmosphere of almost universal hostility to its own social order."
President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher did not defeat socialism in the 1980s. They did not rid the universities of socialist professors. They did not stop the welfare state from expanding. They did not reverse the decline of the "bourgeois family," the disintegration of the religious superstructure of bourgeois life. They did not check "the cheating culture," sentimentalized envy, permissiveness, self-indulgence, petty thieving, paper money or other capital-destroying tendencies. They painted a happy face on a crumbling wall and called it "renewal." The self-congratulations of the political right resemble, more than anything, the bleating of sheep en route to the butcher shop. The lambs do not know where they are headed. They only know that their stomachs are full, the weather is pleasant and the man by the gate is smiling.
What has happened to our civilization is simple enough to explain. "When the habit of rational analysis of ... the daily tasks of life has gone far enough, it turns back upon the mass of collective ideas and criticizes ... them by way of such questions as why there should be kings and popes or subordination or tithes or property," Schumpeter explained in a book titled Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Not only is capitalism destructively self-critical, it is also anti-heroic. "Therefore," wrote Schumpeter, "owning assets that are apt to attract the robber ... and ... disliking warrior ideology that conflicts with its "rational" utilitarianism, the industrial and commercial bourgeoisie is fundamentally pacifist and inclined to insist on the application of the moral precepts of private life to international relations." This "bourgeois" approach to strategic affairs is ludicrous as well as self-defeating. Yet, this approach is built-in to the capitalist system. It does not identify with the militaristic posture of previously successful civilizations.
Consider the origins of modern capitalism: The institutional framework of capitalist civilization initially depended upon the warrior aristocracy of the preceding feudal period for its incubation. Under the noble code of chivalry, warrior aristocracy gave way to constitutional government as a gentleman gives way to a lady. Thus began a process of political rationalization, feminization and bureaucratization of function (not to mention the attending elements of mass culture). After several decades, tradition ceased to matter. Lineage, nobility, breeding and the "man on the white horse" were no longer part of the game. Chivalry was dead and the bourgeoisie killed it. "I have called the bourgeoisie rationalist and unheroic," wrote Schumpeter. "He can only use rationalist and unheroic means to defend his position or to bend a nation to his will."
Those who would strike a mortal blow against capitalism see the logic in Schumpeter's argument: "the bourgeoisie is ill equipped to face the problems, both domestic and international, that have normally to be faced by any country of any importance." As Schumpeter explained, "without protection by some non-bourgeois group, the bourgeoisie is politically helpless and unable not only to lead its nation but even to take care of its particular class interest. Which amounts to saying that it needs a master." Consider the American businessman who trades with China, who invests in Russia, who loans money to Third World dictators. Who will protect this fool from himself?
Schumpeter suggested that dictatorship, one way or another, is inevitable. Liberal democracy cannot last because it destroys its own protective strata. Consider the report of the 9/11 Commission. It was animated by that same rationalizing, unheroic, bourgeois spirit that let itself in for a devastating attack by 19 Arabs with box cutters. The report of the Commission offers page upon page of cluttered admonitions: "improve training" here, "implement reforms" there, and "recognize the need to enhance security," etc. "The Attorney General and the Director of the FBI should take action necessary to ensure that...."
The very best that can be hoped for, if the trend continues, is the second coming of Lucius Cornelius Sulla or Augusto Pinochet, the man who defended capitalism against the inroads of socialism in Chile between 1973 and 1990. His methods were brutal, but they ultimately preserved Chile's bourgeoisie. The other countries of Latin America can now look with green-eyed envy on the relative happiness of the Chileans. In contrast, the miserable unraveling of Venezuela, as seen in this month's outrageously fraudulent recall election, exemplifies the helplessness of bourgeois methods in the face of militant socialism. President Hugo Chavez - with Cuban assistance - has taken his country by the throat. And he will throttle Venezuela as he gleefully complicates America's "oil problem."
In country after country - South Africa, Zimbabwe, Brazil, Ecuador, Vietnam, North Korea and Colombia - one sees the advance of socialism. In Eastern Europe the Russian mafia holds economic sway. The old totalitarian structures of the East have not died. They have changed formation. So what does the bourgeoisie do? They issue credits and promote peace plans. They negotiate, they retreat and they compromise. Every method of non-heroic action is tried. At the same time, heroic action is out of the question. It is regarded with horror. The invasion of Iraq is already put down as a failure - not because it actually failed, but because it was heroic.
It is sickening to realize that freedom and prosperity produce a kind of society that destroys the foundation upon which freedom depends. "I do not pretend to prophesy," Schumpeter wrote; "I merely recognize the facts and point out the tendencies which those facts indicate." He further added: "Marx was wrong in his diagnosis of the manner in which capitalist society would break down; he was not wrong in the prediction that it would break down eventually."
Consider what has transpired since Schumpeter wrote his analysis: Today's conservative was yesterday's liberal. Today's liberal was a 60's communist radical. This indicates a trajectory. And the future is already written if we fail to change this trajectory.
