The End of Socialism and the Disintegration of the Bourgeoisie

In a hundred years the political attitudes of the Danish people have been divided between the liberal ideas of the bourgeoisie, which meant the self-employed and their followers, and the socialism, supported by the working class and some intellectuals.

Numerous are the family parties, which have been wrecked by useless political discussions, and the friendships, which have been destroyed for the sake of the big political dispute.

However this great strife has now become obsolete, even not everybody have yet realized. The idea of socialism have shown up to be not working in real life, and the whole class of independent self-employed farmers and shopowners have in general vanished from society.

Very few remember any more the deep rift, which separated the Danish people during the nineteenth century, in the religious strife between the "Inner Mission" and the "Happy Christianity", the followers of the poet, Grundtvig.

Socialism did not Work

It is said, that usually there is a good relationship between rivalizing natural scientists. It is because, that in this branch of science it is often possible to arrange an experiment, which can settle, which of conflicting theories is true. The rivals watch the experiment, draw a bit on their pipes and say, who should have thought this, then it is nevertheless true. A clear decision on which theory is the correct one has been made, and therefore they can remain good friends and colleagues.

The relations between rivalizing artists or opposite religious persuasions are quite different. They will usually hate each other very much, as their rivalry will never be settled; As it is very difficult to determine objectively, what works of art, which are the most beautiful, or what religions, which are representing the true Gods.

Just like artists and followers of different religious views, the trotskists, anarchists and democratic socialists were very intolerant of each other. Because their theories about organisation of society were completely speculative and would never be tested on the real society.

As painters and writers can add to their works different shades of colour or themes, because they think that this looks really nice, so could the idealistic society theorists freely add all sorts of beautiful democratic, tolerant and humanistic features to their systems, completely independently of human nature and the objectively existing society.

But with the real Russian communism is different. It was tested on the real world, and it was decided if the system worked or not.

The Gods, the History or whoever have this power staged a huge laboratory experiment. The communist leaders were given a quarter of the world at their disposal and vast natural resources. Millions of staunch supporters were prepared to follow their leaders slightest hint. They were granted almost a century to prove that their theory could make the people rich and happy.

But the Russian socialism did not pass the test. It did not work. When the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991 after nearly a century of socialism, the Russians had not become rich and happy. They were still poor and the country was pestered by unemployment, crime and corruption.

It may be reasonable to assume, that most of the communist leaders in Russia were common personality types, related to others with normal human emotions. They would probably have been more than happy to give their citizens, what they wanted, that is freedom of speech and personal freedoms and the like. But they could not do so, because they knew, that this would cause their socialist system to collapse.

The Birth of Socialism

Socialism is not just something, invented by the Gods on one of their bad days. There must have been a reason, why this idea came into the world. Everything has one reason or another.

There may have been a time in the late nineteenth century, where the new independent businessmen, felt highly superior to their poor and dirty workers, fresh from the countryside. They looked down on them and treated them like dirt; and for this they have never been forgiven.

Hans Christian Andersen wrote about the Little Girl with the Matches, and Dickens wrote about the poor boy, Oliver Twist. Back in the nineteenth century the real society also must have been something like this.

Millions of young men in the trenches of the First World must have felt, that they were simply used, and that their lives were considered to be worth nothing.

The Modern Socialists or the Left Wings

The modern socialist parties do not talk very much about socialism. They have very much at heart to increase public services to large groups of voters, as retirees and immigrants, to strengthen tolerance and equality between ethnic groups and to support the development countries.

It seems like that their main concern simply is to be elected. They adjust their declarations only in order to attract as many voters as possible.

The Scottish economist Alexander Tyler, one of Adam Smith's contemporaries from the eightteenth century, is said to have stated:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover, they can vote themselves to benefits from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to poor economy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

The average lifespan of democracies, until they decay, has been 200 years. These nations have evolved in this way: From bondage to spiritual faith, from faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency and from dependency back to bondage."

It was a tall order. Nor is it certain, that Alexander Tyler said exactly so. But he certainly could have had opinions like this. (See Link below)

Professor Tyler wrote a book about the history of the ancient democracies. As we well know, the Roman republic ended up with the popular demand of "Bread and circus." We also remember, that Plato detested the rule by the people, democracy, because his beloved teacher, Socrates, had been executed after a popular demand in the state of Athens.

What strikes us most about the Tyler quote, is the notion that the majority will always vote for the candidates, who promise the most benefits from the public funds. Had we really come so far out?

How do we think ourselves about this development?

It is hard not to think about the episode with "Efterlønnen", a Danish law about early retirement. An overwhelming and decisive group of voters had decided to retire early financed by government funds. Generally they had a good health and had planned to spend some years on the golf courses before they really grew old.

By that time there were shortage of labour force and especially of the older workers experience and expertise. Never the less the politicians did not dare to touch the "efterløn" arrangement. They were afraid that in that case they would not be re-elected.

Actually, most modern voters' political attitudes are really dominated by demands for greater benefits from the public. It may be shorter waiting lists in hospitals, more home help for elderly and disabled, longer maternity leave, lower prices in kindergartens, more support for refugees and immigrants or free off charge hang-out places for youngsters.

The modern socialists, that are the left wings, as they are called, have really ended up as political candidates, who seek to outdo other candidates with promises of greater benefits from state funds. All other politicians have joined the game.

At the same time we must listen to another of the modern Socialists heart cases: "It is necessary to increase immigration to Denmark, otherwise it would not be possible to provide services to retirees and nursing home residents in the future." Thousands arrive every year.

At the same time, a similar number of healthy and able Danish men and women start their early retirement life made possible by the "Efterløn" law and financed by the other taxpayers. They are eager to enjoy life on the golf courses.

The Original Bourgeoisie - The Self-employed

To be owner of the farm, the fishing boat, the shop or the family company is an unrivalled experience. To have foot under own table and control of ones everyday life gives a quality of life, which cannot be compared with the life as a worker in office or factory.

It is interesting and fascinating to run one's own farm, shop or factory. The owner has to plan his own production, find suppliers and have contact with costumers. It is an exciting every-day, which most people only reluctantly will give up.

Half a century ago, more than half the population were closely connected to having "one's own".

All over there were farms of all sizes, even down to six hectares land. There were many small nursery gardens both on open land and in glasshouses. All along the coast and in the bays and inlets were numerous harbours with fishing boats and fishermen specialized in shallow water fishing.

The Disintegration of the Bourgeoisie

When the wind blows over the vast sandy beaches at the North Sea, it whirls the sand into the air. A few sand-grains take shelter behind a stone or a wisp of seaweed. This creates a bit more shelter in these places, than there were before, and even more sand-grains will put themselves right there.

Thus the drifting continues, until all the sand has been collected in large dunes. It is seems to be the stable state of nature for sand.

It is also like this with wealth and money.

At the beginning of last century, there were of course many poor workers, but never the less wealth was still reasonable evenly distributed over the country and among the peasants and the numerous businessmen. But as time passed by and the chaotic economic life took place, wealth was gradually collected in fewer and bigger piles.

Money has a tendency to find its way to where money already has been collected.

The National Bank calls a monetary unit, a "krone", into life and sends it into circulation to cover the expenses of the state. It will be credited the bank and debited an officer's salary account. The officer use it to buy bread. It will be credited his salary account, and debited a baker's account.

The Baker buys flour for our monetary unit. It will be credited the baker's account and debited a farmer. The farmer uses it to invest in a new barn. The monetary unit will be credited he peasant's and debited to a carpenter.

In this way the chaotic life of our monetary unit continues as it moves on from account to account. As the sand on the beach the monetary unit whirls around in the economic life of the society along with his brothers and sisters, the other millions, billions of monetary units. Now and then they take the form of cash, notes and coins. But nowadays it is not very often.

They are all immortal. They can only end their life collectively in the final collapse of the entire currency, in which they take part. Perhaps because they one day will be too many. But then they will in also disappear without trace. Only here and there in dusty attics will be left a few coins and notes, which bear witness to the currency of the past.

Just as the sand on the beach of the North Sea whirls around and piles up in lee of large impressive dunes, so also money and wealth mount up, where it can find shelter. This means where money already is.

One after another, all the small farms and greenhouses were sold. The owners died or gave up. Their farms were merged with other farms. Now days a farmer needs hundreds hectares of land to make ends meet.

The fishing boats were scrapped and replaced by big trawlers. The smaller fishermen gave up and took up working for salary. The small harbours of our childhood were turned into marinas for pleasure boats.

The coasters as well were scrapped and replaced by trucks and container transport.

The Descendants of the Self-employed

The free market meant so much for the political opinion of the independent businessmen and the self-employed farmers of the past, but most of their modern descendents have little or no contact with any market.