"Another example of this confused attempt to justify socialism derives from
Wilde's definition of selfishness, a trait to which Wilde attributes most
social problems, and one which he hopes to eliminate from society altogether.
Selfishness, says Wilde, "is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking
others to live as one wishes to live."[6]
In society, claims Wilde, this type of selfishness enables certain individuals
to dominate the lives of others, through the employment of various shades of
coercion. Wilde correctly asserts that to ground society on the desire of the
few to coerce the many is unjustifiable. Yet this hardly squares with his
desire to forcibly abolish private property for all persons in society by
establishing socialism. To coerce another individual into giving up his
property for the sake of "society" (as must be the case in the socialist state)
would be profoundly anti-individualistic, let alone coercing all individuals
within society to live as the socialist planners deem fit. Such an act would
be, according to Wilde's own definition, the ultimate act of selfishness, and
thus this particular line of reasoning is also self-contradictory.
Confusions and contradictions aside however, Wilde's legendary wit and
discernment do manage to shine through brilliantly in his attacks on government
authority. Despite the fact that he thought the advent of socialism would lead
to a utopian state of personal liberty, he still manages to perceive with all
the force of a great satirist the problems of state power.[7]
Wilde displays a distrust of state power that would rival any modern-day
libertarian. Consider this statement: "if governments are armed with economic
power as they are now with political power: if, in a word, we are to have
Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the
first."[8]
Again, Wilde's confusion is the key to understanding this statement and
extracting from it the considerable truth it contains. Wilde fails to grasp
that socialism by definition requires the transfer of economic power from the
individual to the collective, i.e., the state. And yet Wilde's insight here is
tremendous: if he understood socialism as it is, then by comparing primitive
man to the authoritarian state, he would in many respects be agreeing with
Mises's thesis that establishing socialism would be tantamount to the abolition
of society.
In response to the claim that the state must be authoritarian, Wilde replies,
"It is to be regretted that a portion of our community should be practically in
slavery, but to propose to solve the problem by enslaving the entire community
is childish."[9]
This witty remark once again highlights the confusion in Wilde's argument - he
clearly understood that authoritarianism is a form of slavery, but he could
not, for whatever reason, realize that the socialist state epitomizes problems
of authoritarianism and institutionalizes them. The central confusion appears
to arise not from Wilde's (reasonable) ends, but rather, his (contradictory)
means: for example, for Wilde to pursue the goal of impoverishment is certainly
noble in some sense, but to do so through manipulating certain powers of the
state - which he admits only exacerbate the problem - is, to use Wilde's own
words, simply childish.
Wilde's most profound insight, however, arrives as he realizes that it is not
certain varieties of state power that are harmful, but rather the authority of
the state as such:
All modes of government are failures. Despotism is unjust to everybody,
including the despot, who was probably made for better things. Oligarchies are
unjust to the many, and ochlocracies are unjust to the few. High hopes were
once formed of democracy; but democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the
people by the people for the people. It has been found out.. The form of
government that is most suitable to [man] is no government at all . all
authority is equally bad.[10]
After examining these remarks it appears that Wilde was perhaps far more an
opponent of socialism than he was its champion, and although he was no
anarchocapitalist, Wilde clearly understands the problems inherent in any
system of coercive power. Even though he is incorrect to equate socialism with
the abolition of the modern state, his great passion for truth allowed him to
understand that, not only is there no state-mandated panacea for the ills of
society, but that it is, in fact, the very exercise of coercive power in the
first place that causes many of society's ills.
Wilde would have agreed with the Austrians that only a society based upon
voluntarily agreements and mutual exchange can ensure lasting peace and
prosperity. One cannot help but wonder what a conversation between Oscar Wilde
and Murray Rothbard would have been like.
It is not that Wilde was a poorly informed socialist activist, but rather that
he was - in an appropriately ironic and cynical sense - the consummate
socialist intellectual.
Wilde's confused approach to socialism serves to reminds us that socialism is a
fundamentally confused and contradictory ideology (at best) seeking liberal
ends through conservative means - attempting to end impoverishment, for
instance, via the mandate of the state.
It is lamentable that such a great writer should have been misled by the
socialist zeitgeist of his day; fortunately however, Wilde - unlike many of his
contemporaries - did manage to retain some of the great insights of the liberal
tradition, albeit in a rather confused manner. In terms of their confusion and
foolish pride, intellectuals before and since Mises's demolition of the
socialist system seem to have taken their cues from Wilde, though unfortunately
with far less wit or insight."
http://www.mises.org/story/2748
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
