Alexis de Tocqueville Warns of Socialism: 170 Years Ago!

Even in 1848, Tocqueville saw the dangers of socialism. 

Alexis de Tocqueville was a French nobleman who wrote extensively about the new American republic. His writings give a clear description of how the newly formed American republic was faring. By reading his, "Democracy in America" you can see what part of the system was working and what part of the system was weak. Some of his predictions have come true, including how it would only be a matter of time for people to realize that they can vote for people who will give them money out of the national coffers.

In 1848, he gave a scathing rebuke of socialism during a debate about instituting a socialist style work project in the Second French Republic. His full speech can be found here.

Below are the excerpts that I specifically felt needed highlighting. For a long time, I've felt that 21st century mankind is so wrapped up in ourselves that we don't realize how brilliant and enlightened the people of yesteryear were.

It is uncanny how the words of Alexis de Tocqueville sound like the words of a brilliant conservative pundit of today. But this was delivered in 1848!

"Now, the first characteristic of all socialist ideologies is, I believe, an incessant, vigorous and extreme appeal to the material passions of man."

"A second trait, always present, is an attack, either direct or indirect, on the principle of private property. From the first socialist who said, fifty years ago, that “property is the origin of all the ills of the world,” to the socialist who spoke from this podium and who, less charitable than the first, passing from property to the property-holder, exclaimed that “property is theft,” all socialists, all, I insist, attack, either in a direct or indirect manner, private property."

"Now, a third and final trait, one which, in my eyes, best describes socialists of all schools and shades, is a profound opposition to personal liberty and scorn for individual reason, a complete contempt for the individual. They unceasingly attempt to mutilate, to curtail, to obstruct personal freedom in any and all ways. They hold that the State must not only act as the director of society, but must further be master of each man, and not only master, but keeper and trainer. For fear of allowing him to err, the State must place itself forever by his side, above him, around him, better to guide him, to maintain him, in a word, to confine him. They call, in fact, for the forfeiture, to a greater or less degree, of human liberty, to the point where, were I to attempt to sum up what socialism is, I would say that it was simply a new system of serfdom."

"Is socialism, gentlemen, as so many have told us, the continuation, the legitimate completion, the perfecting of the French Revolution? Is it, as it has been pretended to be, the natural development of democracy? No, neither one or the other."

"There is one thing which strikes me above all. It is that the Old Regime . . . was, in its political philosophy, far less distant from socialism than we had believed. It is far closer to that system. The Old Regime, in fact, held that wisdom lay only in the State and that the citizens were weak and feeble beings who must forever be guided by the hand, for fear they harm themselves. It held that it was necessary to obstruct, thwart, restrain individual freedom, that to secure an abundance of material goods it was imperative to regiment industry and impede free competition. The Old Regime believed, on this point, exactly as the socialists of today do."

"After this great [French] Revolution is the result to be that society which the socialists offer us, a formal, regimented and closed society where the State has charge of all, where the individual counts for nothing, where the community masses to itself all power, all life . . . where the very air is stifling and where light barely penetrates? Is it to be for this  . . . that the French Revolution took place? Is it for this that so many great men died on the field of battle and on the gallows, that so much noble blood watered the earth? No! I swear it by those men who died for this great cause! It is not for this that they died. It is for something far greater, far more sacred, far more deserving of them and of humanity. If it had been but to create such a system, the Revolution was a horrible waste. A perfected Old Regime would have served adequately."

"I mentioned a while ago that socialism pretended to be the legitimate continuation of democracy. I will not . . . rummage around in the garden of Greek roots to find from whence comes this word. I look for democracy where I have seen it, alive, active, triumphant, in the only country on earth where it exists, where it could possibly have been established as something durable in the modern world — in America."

"There you will find a society where social conditions are even more equal than among us; where the social order, the customs, the laws are all democratic; where all varieties of people have entered, and where each individual still has complete independence, more freedom than has been known in any other time or place; a country essentially democratic, the only completely democratic republics the world has ever known. And in these republics you will search in vain for socialism. Not only have socialist theories not captured public opinion there, but they play such an insignificant role in the intellectual and political life of this great nation that they cannot even rightfully boast that people fear them. America today is the one country in the world where democracy is totally sovereign."

"Democracy and socialism are not interdependent concepts. They are not only different, but opposing philosophies. Is it consistent with democracy to institute the most meddlesome, all-encompassing and restrictive government, provided that it be publicly chosen and that it act in the name of the people? Would the result not be tyranny, under the guise of legitimate government and, by appropriating this legitimacy assuring to itself the power and omnipotence which it would otherwise assuredly lack? Democracy extends the sphere of personal independence; socialism confines it. Democracy values each man at his highest; socialism makes of each man an agent, an instrument, a number. Democracy and socialism have but one thing in common—equality. But note well the difference. Democracy aims at equality in liberty. Socialism desires equality in constraint and in servitude."

Sources:
Federalist Radio Hour podcast

Additional Study:

America's Founding Fathers, Professor Allen C. Guelzo

Lecture 35: Professor Guelzo explains how Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America fortold exactly how we would end up in the mess are are in today. He suggested America's focus on self-interest instead of virtue was the key to our success (as opposed to France's failure at creating a republic by focusing too much on equality). He also pointed out that the only thing keeping self-interest in check were the newspapers and voluntary associations in America, especially the religious ones. He warned that if we lose those two checks on self-interested power and corruption that a soft tyranny from the beaurocracies we create to ensure equality would destroy our liberty. The quest for equality under the law would not be enough and would breed jealousy and resentment as it morphs into the desire for equality of outcome.