by Barry A. Liebling
People who follow the political situation in New York City are experiencing an emotional rush. But they diverge sharply with respect to whether the emotion is positive or negative. A large cohort of citizens are elated that the next mayor of the country’s largest city is very likely to be a “democratic socialist” (euphemism for communist) who has captured the Democratic party nomination. The candidate is promising to implement a host of socialist policies and, if elected, will certainly have a profound impact on life in the city.
Democrats greatly outnumber Republicans and independents in the city. So the probability that the leftist candidate wins is high.
And, as expected, there is a sizable number of people – both within New York and outside – who view the prospect of a democratic socialist mayor with dread. They envision that implementing progressive-left government policies will lead to disaster.
For more than 100 years there have been free market and conservative pundits who have argued in writing and by speaking that socialism does not work. What is remarkable now is that the number of “does not work” warnings has exploded since the socialist candidate garnered the nomination. Of course, you will not encounter much of this in the legacy or mainstream media since these institutions are committed to promoting leftism. But the opposition media is saturated with essays that review the dismal historical record of socialism.
What are the “does not work” commentators saying? They point to countries that have implemented socialism big-time (some examples are Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea) and review the universal consequences that include a low standard of living, general misery, and government abusing citizens. They also list smaller scale socialist demonstrations such as government-owned grocery stores, “free” goods and services, and taking over private companies. The performance of these “enterprises” is invariably poor.
If the goal of socialism were to promote human flourishing and respect individual natural rights then, of course, it “does not work.” But note well that the designers and most enthusiastic boosters of socialism have different objectives.
What do the most ardent promoters of socialism want? Members of the herd are not homogeneous, and if you speak with them you will encounter a variety of objectives. Let’s consider three popular goals.
Start with the basic goal that the “intellectual avant-garde” leaders aim to achieve – attack individualism.
In a free society (a situation that is precious and too rare) each person has individual sovereignty. That is the referent described by the theme of inalienable rights – life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This implies that you are responsible for running your own life and you deserve to feel pride in your successful accomplishments.
To a classic Marxist or modern Neo-Marxist individualism is atrocious. The primary directive of a socialist agenda is to destroy (if possible) or severely reduce individual autonomy. Everyone should work “for the common good” and not be concerned with the self. The socialist antipathy for individualism is captured in the slogan “there is no I in team.”
So does socialism work? Does it diminish individualism? Yes, every time. With each new program or policy people are required to obey the directives of the state. There are severe penalties for resistance. Autonomy is degraded for everyone – whether they like it or not.
Consider another goal socialists have. Some people go through life saturated with envy and resentment. They are bitterly angry that people who they do not like are permitted to have large amounts of wealth. Their rancor motivates them to implore the government to take things away from rich people. Consider the common phrases “tax the rich” and “make rich people pay their fair share” which is popular among leftist zealots. Of course, the existing progressive tax system assures that “the rich” are already funding almost all of the government’s revenue. But perpetually furious progressives obsessively demand more.
What happens to the extra money that is extracted from “the rich” via increased tax rates? To socialist boosters it is not really important how the confiscated loot is used. The essential motive is to punish, push down, and diminish those they despise. Do socialist policies achieve that outcome? Every time.
There is a large segment of young voters who have been educated in mainstream institutions from K12 to graduate school. At least since the beginning of this century these schools have been dominated by leftist partisans. Themes that are endlessly emphasized are that capitalism and the profit motive are bad and are to blame for any outcome that makes you uncomfortable. Socialism is the remedy and it is the way to escape from the focus on profits and bring about selfless “social justice.” Young citizens who uncritically accept this nonsense will cast their ballots for the socialist candidate.
So socialism, when implemented, fulfills the heart-felt yearnings of the ruling educational cabal. They have exerted their best efforts to have their pupils (note that pupils are passive, students are active and sometimes self-directed) join the long leftist progressive march. Will socialism increase the power of government-run education? Yes, it happens every time.
Here is the take away. Socialism’s promoters generally have nefarious motives. Once socialism takes hold, it invariably delivers at least some of the outcomes that its cheerleaders seek. So in a perverse sense, socialism always works.
*** See other entries at AlertMindPublishing.com in “Monthly Columns.” ***