I. Introduction in social parasitism

We have to explicitly articulate right from the beginning of our inquiry that throughout this entire treatise we do not mean anything unambiguously negative under the term “social parasitism”. Since social parasitism, as we shall see, is an objective phenomenon just like any other social phenomenon and for one reason or another exists in human society, we are concerned here exclusively with science and not with politics or moral of this appearance and will endeavor to analyze it impartially just like biologist is analyzing parasitism of biological species. Moreover, that social parasitism sometimes might be the only way to subsist and not just for concrete representatives of particular specie, but even for the specie as a whole. We will equally try to examine where social parasitism creates problems for the development of mankind, for social evolution or may be even threats for the very existence of human specie and where it is fundamentally or at least partially beneficial. Even if we will succeed in our attempt to exhibit an existence of this phenomenon in human society, this will not downgrade a bit either human nature or the nature of our society just like they are not at all diminished by human sexuality or by sexual instincts, which once used to be a similar subject of prejudices. Instead, on the positive side we will be able to consider a due course of actions and a due societal construction coming from particular type of human nature. In order to take due actions and apply adequate political, social and economic recipes we must perfectly understand who we are and base all policies and actions on what we really are, not on what we would like to be. Otherwise we are in the domain of idealistic, unsustainable and detrimental fairy tales.

For us here in this treatise the nature of social parasitism is crystal clear and overwhelmingly simple. One does not have to be a social scientist in order to analyze this phenomenon. Vice-a-versa, people, who are far from delicacy of the social science, probably much better understand this phenomenon in all its simplicity since they are not constrained by various superficial considerations such as social science career or scientific and political correctness. Essence of social parasitism is easier presentable and comprehensible if we start to track it from self-interest oriented human nature. Since human nature, fortunately or unfortunately, is having a self-interest oriented character, it is reasonable to assume that it will not stop short of living on account of other people whenever opportunity arise. Social parasitism, in fact, is a logical continuation of egocentric and self-interest oriented human nature. Of course, due recognition of this fact might require some moral sacrifice. But… First of all, such moral sacrifice is nothing comparatively with parasitism of all our predecessor species, which have to eat each other in order to stay intact and which behavior is much more difficult to justify morally. Comparatively with them we are in a much better position on that account. And, second of all, human beings rather rarely realize that they are acting reproachfully – normally we have an enormous and unbelievable gift of self-persuasion as well as an exquisite social apparatus of ideological brainwashing in order not to notice such a minute moral inconvenience.

Indeed, entire biological world consists mostly or rather exclusively from parasites, which live, survive and multiply on account of other biological organisms. Animals, as we might be convinced by now, are unable to generate or recreate any energy or matter besides those of their own body, or humanly speaking they cannot produce anything and because of that they have to be predators (carnivore) or at least eat plants (herbivore). Therefore, they have to kill and maintain their own existence by destroying lives of other creatures. Human beings in this biological cycle are actually not very far from animals. We also eat plants and animals or destroy their lives in industrial purposes. We are definitely parasites on that account, even though biologists as well as sociologists would probably disagree with such a liberal or rather too wide-scale interpretation of biological parasitism in relation both to animals and to humans. However, what concerns us here in this treatise is not a biological parasitism abundantly described by representatives of this remarkable science, but exclusively social parasitism hardly ever described by representatives of far less advanced and far more controversial science of sociology.

Social parasitism being dreadfully simple means not just making a living on account of other people – but making a living on account of the other people relying on mechanisms of power and coercion. First part of this definition is unimaginable or unattainable without the second one. As to live on account of other people expropriating or redistributing their property is only possible relying on the mechanisms of force, power and coercion, otherwise nobody would voluntarily spare his property apart from considerations of charity. Even under an influence of the most brainwashing ideologies such redistributions are not infinite. But much more importantly is that any ideology itself requires enormous resources (first of all financial), which cannot be obtained under normal circumstances, but only relying on power and coercion. Voluntary charity, not associated with mechanisms and instruments of coercion, on the other hand, under no circumstances can be related to the phenomenon of social parasitism.

There is one serious and even essential advantage of social parasitism comparatively with biological one. Potentially under the social parasitism human beings can avoid eating or killing of each other. Even though such potential generally came to be realizable mostly after the World War II and mostly in modern economically developed countries only and even though for thousands of years social parasitism was indispensably associated with violence and oppression, we still have to indulge ourselves in recognition of a remarkable progress on this chapter comparatively with the animal world.

Social parasitism is much more extensive in time than just 20th and 21st centuries of modern age, a way more general than specifically European or American appearance and a far more fundamental social phenomenon than merely income redistribution for vulnerable parts of population. In fact if it would be limited by at least one of these three considerations – it would not worth a fundamental examination. Vice-a-versa, only as it represents a universally important and foundationally determinative part of human society – we will trouble ourselves to scrutinize it as deep down inside as we can.

2. Forms of social parasitism

Generally speaking there are two ways to make a living on account of other people relying on mechanisms of power and coercion – one of them is income redistribution and another - exclusive rights.

Redistribution, of course, implies a further distribution of once already distributed income. In order to make something like that generally possible one certainly needs to apply mechanisms of power and coercion, otherwise it would be rather difficult to persuade people to give away part of their income or part of their property. For the time being, we are less concerned with justification or rationality of this process (we will deal with them later), but much more with its nature. What any income redistribution means in its absolute simplicity is a coercive transfer of resources from certain people to certain other people. Further developing such simplicity, income redistribution implies a partial (or even full) subsistence of certain people on account of certain other people, even though sometimes necessary or socially justifiable. Through a general notion of “living on account of other people” there is a straightforward parallel between income redistribution and social parasitism.  

There are two forms of income redistribution – direct and indirect. Indirect income redistribution is a much more familiar phenomenon both to professionals and to general public. Indirect income redistribution implies redistribution of coercively expropriated resources from one group of people to another through intermediary of some social institution (State, chieftain, duke, etc.) and normally is relying on coercive instruments of this social intermediary. Indirect income redistribution probably is what vast majority of people would understand under the overall simplified notion of “income redistribution”. Indirect income redistribution forming a corner stone of modern social policy is widely investigated by social science may be only except from the angle of view of social parasitism. Latter statement of things yet testifies that all theoretical analysis of the nature of income redistribution is mostly of superficial and idealistic character. At the same time, in order to be absolutely fair we must mention that a lot of economic investigations of the process of income redistribution bear purely applicative character related to its influence upon consolidated national, regional and local budgets and are not bound to go into deep analysis of this phenomenon. Indirect income redistribution is an enormously important and in the modern world probably even a key element for investigation of social parasitism since any instruments of coercion in our days are associated, are paid and exist only thanks to indirect income redistribution. Besides, today indirect income redistribution represents financially the most fulfilled and the most comprehensive form of social parasitism. At the same time consideration of the phenomenon of social parasitism and of its influence upon economy and society is absolutely unthinkable without examination of its two other forms – direct income redistribution and exclusive rights.

Direct income redistribution is different from widely familiar indirect kind since income is redistributed not through the state or through some other social intermediary, but is rather being channeled directly from the payer or from the “victim” of income redistribution to its beneficiary. At the same time, direct income redistribution just as indirect type is based exclusively on coercion, even though no social intermediary (while there is always at least one) is getting additional resources at its disposal, but is rather establishing overall conditions of the “deal”. For example, labor relations in modern economically developed countries are under a comprehensive regulation on behalf of the State, but not all employment regulation is based on income redistribution. Minimum wages or dismissal allowances, though are compulsory established by the state are being paid directly by employer to employee without any financial intermediation of the State. In fact, significant part of the state regulation of economy and society in the modern world falls under direct income redistribution. In this treatise implicitly under the notion of “income redistribution” we will generally understand both direct and indirect kinds, even though most of the time we will be making a distinction between the two for the sake of clarity and rationality.

Direct income redistribution is somewhat touching another fundamental social concept – understanding of exclusive rights. “Exclusive rights” is a far more difficult phenomenon than income redistribution, first of all, because it is a way more hidden within the social infrastructure. Exclusive rights mean exclusive, unreachable for certain other people or social groups possibilities to appropriate exclusive above-the-market income relying on mechanisms and instruments of coercion. Exclusive rights comprise everything what is based on coercion and particularly every source of income or revenue based on coercion starting from slavery, forcible expropriations in the aftermath of social revolutions, monopolies based on coercion and ending with a small bribery for opening a kiosk in a profitable and convenient location and exactly in this sense they are somewhat overlapping with the concept of income redistribution, especially of its direct kind. On the other hand, exclusive rights form quite a separate phenomenon since in their nature they are not necessarily associated with income redistribution (either direct or indirect) and are rather leaning towards understanding of “income distribution”, though to the one based on power and coercion. For example, if we consider medieval or feudal property relations – a landlord or a baron is having exclusive (unreachable for certain people and social groups and first of all for his semi-dependent serves) social rights to possess land and even exclusive right to possess and to appropriate his serves’ labor if not their very life. He appropriates a product of his serves’ labor directly relying on his own instruments of coercion even though most of the time around there are other more or less powerful instruments of coercion associated with a higher level of societal structure, a general societal framework, general social conditions and even general laws reflecting those conditions, which are making such expropriation and appropriation possible. Normally our landlord also pays certain forms of taxes to the State or to his sovereign for making such societal framework to happen and therefore he participates in the process of indirect income redistribution through some social intermediary as well. Detailed analysis of exclusive property rights can be found in “The Property General Theory of the State and Social Evolution” of the same author, where majority of ideas presented herewith can be followed. 

There is also an essential difference between income redistribution and exclusive rights in terms of their beneficiaries and of their justification. Exclusive rights under no circumstances can ever be justified and represent a pure negative detrimental to human society and social evolution phenomenon, which is emerging because there are socially strong people – beneficiaries of exclusive rights, and there are socially weak people – who are paying for exclusive rights. We cannot say the same about income redistribution even though income redistribution being impossible without coercion is always coupled with exclusive rights since any coercion always generates exclusive rights. Income redistribution besides benefiting socially strong people (even in fighting for social benefits and guarantees one needs to be strong enough), to certain extent also benefits the socially weaker and even vulnerable groups of people. Major problem with all-embracing influence of social parasitism upon human society is that we can hardly find any sustainable arguments in favor of a complete elimination of income redistribution. While an overwhelming spread of income redistribution, which is not encountering any arguments of its complete negation and being irreversibly driven by fundamental envies of human nature, is, as we shall see, beyond any frames of reason, rationality and decency.  

3. Profiteers and "victims" of social parasitism

Whether we like it or not, as their initial inclination human beings generally prefer to live on account of other people whenever an opportunity arises. Other things equal, living on coercively redistributed resources is easier than earning a living on our own. This is so, first of all, because all coercive expropriations and redistributions are the deeds of social instruments, mechanisms and systems, not of separate private individuals. Of course, at any point in time majority of people are weak or socially weak and incapable of direct coercion or saying it more scientifically – they are not associated with the mechanisms of power and coercion. This fact does not matter at all. These people are hardly even “free riders” since the people who are associated with mechanisms of coercion or simply those who are able to coerce and expropriate are always restrained, to one degree or another, by the voice of multitude or in modern scientific language – restrained by “public opinion” - even if it is a voice of the multitude of “sheep”.

The simplest, most secure and most certain way to deal with public opinion is to buy it. It is always bought and sold very easily even though the price sometimes may be too high. It is easily marketable not because people or human specie is generally “bad” – nothing like that - unfortunately much more profound and complicated reasons are involved. First of all, public opinion is very amorphous and divisible. Most importantly, however, is that as human nature is of the self-interest oriented character, the interests of various human beings are very different and quite often - opposite to each other. Under these circumstances to buy some of them against the other does not require any touch of genius. Besides, there is no any guarantee that public opinion is “right” about something; quite often it is “wrong” and intolerable.

Much depressed as it is, the voice of multitude still carries some weight and this weight is the better apprehended by the “wolves”, the more oppression and misery is fallen upon the “sheep”. Because of all that, throughout the entire human history “wolves” or people associated with mechanisms of power and coercion have to buy, in one way or another, the “sheep” conformity in order not to awake any “wolf” character in them. “Wolves” are normally watching very closely a frontier of tolerance of the weak multitude.

Now, of course, we can imagine that there is a social parasitism of “wolves” and a social parasitism of “sheep”. But who are those “wolves” and “sheep”? This is not an easy question and we will try to answer it throughout the entire treatise. For introductory part, however, we will satisfy ourselves with simplified definitions of people associated with the mechanisms of power and coercion and of people whom those people associated with the mechanisms of power and coercion for one reason or another are inclined to buy, or rather to buy their support, their tolerance or their conformity. People associated with the mechanisms of power and coercion (“wolves”) are usually among the socially strongest individuals in society, who have managed to get on top of the administration of coercive instruments, the most fundamental among the latter being the State. Worthwhile to mention that these people are not necessarily the strongest characters and the richest people in society, sometimes a right of birth or any fortunate occasion, chance is swinging them on top of societal structure. They must be, however, most closely associated with the mechanisms of power and coercion where the entire process of income redistribution takes place. People “bought” by the people associated with mechanisms of power and coercion (“sheep”) form a much more complicated and even much more illusory group. Whomever “wolves” intend to buy always depends on who among the “sheep” is most fitted to the task and who can be counter-posed to other “sheep” with a maximum benefit for the “wolves”. Such group of people in no way can be defined as a constant one for all historical periods. Vice-a-versa, if there is anything constant about this group of people besides its definition – it is its variability. We can be much more specific and a way more conclusive about composition, nature and interests of “wolves”, than about those of the “sheep”. It is moreover so since it is exactly the former group or the “wolves” who select which “sheep” will be bought according to their subjective and sometimes even mistaken apprehension of utility of the selected group of “sheep” for their purposes. 

Another issue, which consideration we will initiate in introductory part, is who are general and who are final victims of social parasitism? This is a rather complicated question, which we will also try to answer throughout the entire treatise. Of course, ideally or idealistically society as a whole must be a victim of social parasitism. But this is too general and too ambiguous first of all since normally nobody knows what society is. “Wolves”, of course, are hardly ever victims of social parasitism or of the instruments of coercion, at most in terms of unclear and rather rare negative repercussions or sometimes even retributions on their posterity. In short- and medium-term they are definitely the principal beneficiaries exchanging their futility and inability to create any value for enormous personal and group incomes, which nature and composition we will examine in due course.

In order to throw some bits and pieces of social or rather of economic pie to certain groups of “sheep”, “wolves” have to confiscate or to expropriate it from somebody else, as they are unable or incapable to generate any productive income under their function of supervisors of the mechanisms of power and coercion. Such situation might create a feeling that those from whom an income or a property are being expropriated for the purposes of income redistribution form the most exposed or the most burdened by social parasitism group of people. However, a huge problem with social parasitism, with its accelerating dissemination all over the world and with its overwhelming influence upon the entire society is that this is exactly not so. If we take money away from somebody and give it to somebody else, we are always at a risk to loose as much support in one place as we gain in another. Therefore the entire idea of buying “sheep” or of buying public opinion is to take preponderate amount of money from few and to give them to many if not to all or at least to create such an illusion. Something like that is generally possible when you take money from the wealthiest parts of population and redistribute them to the poorer. Even though rich and affluent people are normally less inclined to recourse to violent social actions and are much more tolerant to coercive expropriations than the poor, people associated with the mechanisms of power and coercion (“wolves”) still have to take into account and to be thoroughly cautious of the fact that rich people are usually among the strongest individuals in society and any attempts on their life and property at certain point might generate undesirable for ruling elite consequences. Rich people, of course, are generally less vulnerable to social confiscations and only partially because they have a great lot, sharing which is not so painful for them. Equally if not more important is that any property expropriations, redistributions and confiscations are coming together with preservation of the existing order of things as they are inevitably associated with diminishing pace of innovations, deterioration of market entry possibilities and with evading economic competition. Simply put, if we confiscate property of the rich and redistribute it to the poorer – we simultaneously increase consumption on account of property accumulation or on account of investments in capital and technology and reduce both economic and technological competition. This is a real “value for money” from the point of view of the rich people and not some mythical, mysterious and permanently inefficient public services.

Strange as it is, but ultimate victims of any property or income redistributions, as we shall see, especially in the long run are “sheep” themselves or socially weak and vulnerable groups of population in whose interests the entire income redistribution is seemingly originating. Under coercive redistribution of income and property they are finally paying for everything – for the entire “party” - for overall slowdown of economic growth in terms of their poverty and misery (sometimes of hunger); for lower quality goods and services, for societal absurdity and sometimes even repugnancy, which are finally hurting them more than anybody else; for slowdown in scientific discoveries and technological innovations; for degradation of social mentality; for inescapable under such order of things forthcoming social catastrophes, etc.  

4. Why classical liberalism fails

Without understanding of the phenomenon of social parasitism it is very difficult to portray anything in society or in human history. Social parasitism is a far more profound phenomenon than what might be commonly imagined under this term. It explains such a great deal of social and historical events, of socio-economic and politico-sociological processes, that it would hardly be an overstatement to emphasize that the entire nature of any society - either of modern or in any historical retrospective - cannot be understood and explained without direct application of the concept of social parasitism. In fact anything social, sociality or society generally for that matter exist only when there is a coercive living on account of other people. Power and coercion is what society all about, while the term “social” applies only to something what is based on power and coercion. If there is no coercion and therefore no income redistribution and no exclusive rights, everything is pure economy and that is an outcome we all must strive to achieve. Classical liberalism is more or less all about such outcome. Throughout this entire treatise we will endeavor to analyze why we are unable to achieve this honorable outcome or why historical and contemporary liberalism fails from one side and why we are stuck with extraordinary aggrandizement of pro-etatist ideologies and state domination in the modern socialist society of economically developed nations.

Adam Smith ingeniously described what happens with economy and society under self-interest oriented human nature and was followed in this noble task by not less brilliant liberal philosophers. They have introduced and advocated, as we all know, an understanding of laissez-faire and tried and are still trying to embed it in reality through a policy of limited government, individual freedom and free markets. Even though these attempts are very nice and noble and even simple for understanding, but unfortunately they almost always and everywhere fail. Pure laissez-faire with a free equilibrium of supply and demand and automatic price adjustment, without doubts had never existed in the history of mankind. Though more or less close to this definition societies and economies were put into practice and prospered mostly in anglo-saxon countries and dominions and mostly in 19th century only.

What classical liberal philosophers seem to miss or fail to realize in their ingenious but sometimes too idealistic philosophical constructions is paying attention to a simple fact that human nature is not just self-interest oriented, which postulate forms a corner stone of liberal and even of marxian societal assumptions, but is simultaneously having as its initial inclination a living whenever possible on account of other people or of society as a whole – a living on coercively expropriated and redistributed money. Unfortunately, such statement of things is bound to change the entire set of liberal and marxian societal assumptions and consequently any set of societal conclusions. Such human nature, in fact, means that human actions determined by unsurpassed envy of coercive redistributions and exclusive rights both on behalf of the “wolves” and on behalf of the “sheep” and driven towards unpleasant ideologies of imperialism, socialism, communism, nazism and nationalism are not merely a bend of lost uneducated souls, but are in absolute and direct harmony with the very fundamentals of human nature. It also means that laissez-faire is unattainable not only in practice, but hardly even in theory. What laissez-faire prescribes from political point of view (not from economic one) is a society without coercion. This generally suppose society without the state, while society without state is already an anarchist ideal, not a classical liberal one. Basically it is only under the stateless society markets can bounce whichever way they want, otherwise, to one degree or another, they are always socially monopolized or dominated by the mechanisms of power and coercion. Realization of laissez-faire under the self-interest oriented human nature would probably deem feasible and might even be embedded in the latter, but realization of laissez-faire under the human nature inclined to living on account of other people through coercively redistributed resources is unthinkable. Moreover, as we shall see, the laissez-faire society owing to such human nature is scarcely comprehensible under democracy, which means nothing else as permanent and constantly accelerating income redistribution from richer minority to poorer majority with a good share of the state bureaucracy. Such is a simple arithmetic of “one man – one vote” where the poorer (not just poor, but poor and middle income people with envy for social guarantees) are always in absolute and even vast majority.

We are being trapped by even superior problem. Historically, there was always a hope for liberals that masses of population are undereducated, under-intelligent and are over-influenced by etatist ideologies, the latter being against their real true interests and that with the time passing by, people will become smarter, more intelligent and more knowledgeable. They will recognize their real true interests and one true societal theory and it will be impossible to sell them any ideological garbage. As we see – this is not happening - even with sophisticated education, economic affluence and abundant intelligence of modern economically developed society. Vice-a-versa, the further we are, the more and more a preservation of comfort, affluence and job security are dominating average personality, while any tunes of self-sufficiency, individualism and personal independence are playing less and less loud. Under modern comfort people are becoming softer, more gentle, weaker and less capable to earn money completely on their own and equally to fight for anything in this life. Deep down inside they do recognize all that and are not just afraid, but are even inclined to panic about any changes. Not only education and intelligence are hardly producing desirable by classical liberals effect, but much worse than that - human nature is becoming much more susceptible to penetration and incubation of social parasitism.