Musings from Tallinn

I had a discussion the other day with a guy who argued in favour of the Bolivarian revolution in South America, namely the Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez. The discussion, which was online, was cordial and informed; he made a good case for Socialism being the answer for South America’s poor. It should be no surprise that I argued against the Bolivarian movement.

Let me say right now I like Chavez, and while what I really like about Chavez is that he’s thousands of miles away, I actually do like him. Chavez is the sort of charismatic leader we don’t see anymore in Europe, he speaks passionately about the plight of his supporters – the poor – and communicates directly with them via his weekly TV show. Imagine Tony Blair, our own so-called ‘great communicator,’ addressing his faithful each week? Apart from record complaints to the regulators I’m not sure what he would achieve.

One of Chavez’s most controversial policies was land reform. Chavez confiscated many private estates and distributed the land to the peasants who had toiled them for generations. This has of course endeared him to the peasants but infuriated the landowners. It’s also a powerful message to the middle classes and foreign investors “in Venezuela we don’t respect property rights.” Of course Chavez doesn’t need foreign investment he’s sitting on huge quantities of the worlds great narcotic: Oil.

One statement from my online interlocutor really made my own point perfectly:

“[Chavez] has proven that Socialism without corruption is the best form of government for everyone.”

Rather sneeringly I asked if ‘Socialism without corruption’ wasn’t an oxymoron? I was teasing but I meant what I said; government is inherently corrupt. No matter how ideological and virtuous a political group, power corrupts. Power and corruption are indelibly linked; you can’t instigate change without power, and you can’t have power without some form of corruption poisoning it. Declaring that Socialism without corruption is the best form of government for everyone is rather like saying that a Fiat without rust is the best car in the world; everyone knows Fiat’s and rust are indelibly linked.

The left has always been home to utopian ideas of society; they have an unfailing confidence in man, which instinctively ignores the lessons of history. Man is a self-serving and xenophobic creature, and no matter how he is conditioned, when he is denied his needs and wants he returns to a Hobbesian state and social order disintegrates. It is this anti-social and selfish reality of man that poisons governments, they taste power and it’s delicious. While tygerland is undoubtedly of the left, it harbours a healthy suspicion and disdain of government.

So what does this new and cynical tygerland stand for?

It remains absolutely committed to libertarianism and the freedom of man. It rejects government control beyond guaranteeing those freedoms and ensuring order. It does however believe that education and training are fundamental to prosperity, its caveat being a vitriolic rejection of the use of educational institutions to engineer social change.

tygerland believes that socialism, regardless of good intention, is one step from government imposed serfdom. Only the market can deliver opportunity and prosperity, while rewarding invention and merit. Socialism cannot be separated from totalitarianism; while your basic needs may be met by socialism, it strips man of necessity and freedom. Necessity is the mother of invention, and freedom is paramount to a just society.

Spending a few days in Estonia – a former constituent of the USSR – it is clear that the western model of the capitalist democracy can deliver astonishing prosperity, real freedom, and economic growth.