When trying to convince someone about the downsides of socialism, I generally make a practical argument. I point out that socialism has universally failed, whether looking at totalitarian versions in places such as North Korea and Cuba or democratic versions in places such as Venezuela and Greece.
Simply stated, the particular strain of socialism doesn’t make a difference. At the end of the day, the greater the level of statism, the greater the level of economic damage.
But our friends on the left aren’t discouraged. Indeed, the support for cranks like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn is a sign that socialist policies still have appeal to some people.
Writing for CapX, Kristian Niemietz of London’s Institute for Economic Affairs contemplates the resurgence of socialism. He starts by citing examples of pro-socialist writings.
Opinion pieces which tell us to stop obsessing over socialism’s past failures…have almost become a genre… Nathan Robinson,
the editor of Current Affairs, wrote…that socialism has not “failed”. It has just never been done properly… Closer to home, Owen Jones wrote that Cuba’s current version of socialism was not “real” socialism… And Washington Post columnist Elizabeth Bruenig wrote an article with the self-explanatory title ‘It’s time to give socialism a try’.
Kristian provides three reasons why the we’ll-do-better-next-time theory of socialism is very impractical.
…articles in this genre share a number of common flaws. First, as much as the authors insist that previous examples of socialism were not “really” socialist, none of them can tell us what exactly they would do differently. …Secondly, the authors do not seem to realise that there is nothing remotely new about the lofty aspirations they talk about, and the buzzphrases they use. Giving “the people” democratic control over economic life has always been the aspiration, and the promise, of socialism. …Thirdly, contemporary socialists completely fail to address the deficiencies of socialism in the economic sphere. They talk a lot about how their version of socialism would be democratic, participatory, non-authoritarian, nice and cuddly. Suppose they could…magically make that work. What then? They would then be able to avoid the Gulags, the show trials and the secret police… But we would still be left with a dysfunctional economy.
Amen to the last point.
I wrote last year that Marxist socialism is disgusting and brutal compared to liberal socialism, but both versions lead to economic malaise.
Which leads to the conclusion of Kristian’s column.
Ultimately, the contemporary argument for socialism boils down to: “next time will be different, because we say so.” After more than two dozen failed attempts, that is just not good enough.
Of course, some people instinctively knew that socialism was a pre-determined recipe for failure. Here’s the great Winston Churchill speaking about statism shortly after World War II.
Spot on. You can’t control an economy without controlling people.
And here’s another voice from the past, courtesy of Reddit‘s libertarian page.
And here’s Mr. Rogers imagining a fantasy world where socialism might work.
Last but not least, let’s close with this gem from Reddit‘s Libertarian Meme page.
Though when you think about people starving to death in places like Venezuela and North Korea, I suppose we shouldn’t laugh too much.
P.S. Other examples of socialism humor can be enjoyed here, here, and here.
[…] explained in my three-part series (here, here, and here), socialism is a poisonous ideology. With poisonous […]
[…] explained in my three-part series (here, here, and here), socialism is a poisonous ideology. With poisonous […]
[…] my complete and utter disdain for socialism, I’m obviously a big fan of this discussion between Rand Paul […]
[…] we’re not going to add to the already voluminous research on the failures of socialism in today’s column. Instead, we’re going to laugh at this evil […]
[…] latest power grab by the federal government isn’t socialism. That would involve the government owning and operating rental […]
[…] he’s an unreconstructed leftist with genuinely horrid ideas, but Crazy Bernie has generated plenty of clever humor (see, for instance, here, here, here, here, […]
[…] I’ve written many times about socialism, which is sometimes a frustrating task because the definition is slippery. […]
[…] Regular readers know that I’m a long-time proponent of this message for healthy thinking. […]
[…] seems like a no-brainer, especially given the wretched economic performance of countries where the government owns or controls the means of […]
[…] seems like a no-brainer, especially given the wretched economic performance of countries where the government owns or controls the means of […]
[…] will mean lots of suffering and hardship, but the silver lining to that dark cloud is that we’ll surely get plenty of new […]
[…] the election results from Super Tuesday signify a rejection of the evil and destructive ideology of socialism. After all, despite promising the most handouts, Bernie Sanders was defeated in most states and […]
[…] would be good for the country, but bad for my collection of socialism […]
[…] The socialists, by contrast, think government can directly control how capital is allocated. At the risk of understatement, that approach doesn’t have a good track record. […]
[…] I’ve repeatedly warned about the downsides of socialism, calling it “evil and stupid,” as well as a “dreary failure.” […]
[…] the misery that it has inflicted on the world, it’s just about impossible to think of socialism as a […]
[…] I’ve written many times about socialism, which is sometimes a frustrating task because the definition is slippery. […]
[…] the good news is that there’s a lot of real-world evidence that socialism fails every time it is […]
[…] focuses on democratic socialism rather than Marxist socialism, so he’s not even counting the horrible abuses that you find in socialist regimes such as Cuba, North Korea, and […]
[…] other words, the real lesson is not that socialism is bad (that should be obvious), but rather that there’s a strong relationship between national prosperity and economic […]
[…] is a joke. It doesn’t work. And it is so often a gateway to […]
[…] an economic system for a nation, socialism is a miserable failure. Especially real socialism (government ownership of the means of productions, government-dictated […]
Ken,
I assume you are serious. Socialism has failed wherever tried. It has been ‘sabotaged’ only because it is prone to sabotage.
If a small homogeneous group tries socialism, it might work. But the larger and more heterogeneous the group (USA great example here), the less likely socialism will work. Because it’s less likely most people will agree on collective action.
With socialism, the will of the collective must still be obeyed whether people agree or not. But many people don’t like being forced to do things they don’t want to do, or prevented from doing what they want. Yet the collectivist government cannot tolerate visible examples of resistance. So they crush them. And it ratchets up. Result: oppression AND reduced prosperity.
Apparently you are unaware, but the early American attempt at socialism failed, just like all the other attempts. Look up William Bradford’s journal. People didn’t work hard on the communal land and crops were poor. People started working hard when it became their personal plot of land, and crop output boomed.
Oh, and there’s plenty of cooperation and compromise in free-market capitalism. Transactions ARE voluntary.
The history of socialism is positive and its benefits clear. That is, in all the places where it has not been sabotaged. As to the riddle of how to get everyone to participate, the answer is the same one early Americans gave. No work, no eat. Socialists seek cooperation and compromise. That does not mean they will allow some people to prey on others. The enemies of socialism are the very rich and big corporations, who want more and more and will be satisfied only when they have it all.
Socialism is a dreary failure in the US because it has been taken over by plutocrats and corporations. As the saying goes, they fixed up socialism so that all the benefits of government go to the rich and big businesses and all the costs to do this are paid by the ordinary citizens. Any libertarian who believes his philosophy can fix this is full and it smells bad. And what does the capitalist add to this – more theft and more bad smell.
[…] And here’s a Tweet showing that Schumpeter was under no illusions about the folly of socialism. […]
[…] back to the point I made at the start of this column, socialism (or any other form of statism) has never produced this type of economic […]
[…] back to the point I made at the start of this column, socialism (or any other form of statism) has never produced this type of economic […]
[…] bottom line is that socialism is always a failure. The only open issue is whether it is the benign version or totalitarian […]
[…] = window.CHITIKA.units.length; window.CHITIKA.units.push(unit); document.write(''); }()); I’ve written many times about socialism, which is sometimes a frustrating task because the definition is […]
[…] me that there’s a big difference between their benign policies of democratic socialism and the wretched track records of Marxist socialism, national socialism, and other forms of […]
[…] me that there’s a big difference between their benign policies of democratic socialism and the wretched track records of Marxist socialism, national socialism, and other forms of […]
[…] that there’s a big difference between their benign policies of democratic socialism and the wretched track records of Marxist socialism, national socialism, and other forms of […]
[…] I’ve written many times about socialism, which is sometimes a frustrating task because the definition is slippery. […]
[…] written many times about socialism, which is sometimes a frustrating task because the definition is […]
[…] written many times about socialism, which is sometimes a frustrating task because the definition is […]
[…] For examples of socialism humor, click here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here […]
they’re baackkk……
“There was no question on primary night in Texas last month that Franklin Bynum would win the Democratic nomination to become a criminal court judge in Houston. The 34-year-old defense attorney had no challengers.
But for his supporters who packed into a Mexican restaurant that evening, there was still something impressive to celebrate. Many in the crowd were members of the Democratic Socialists of America, or D.S.A., a group that has experienced an enormous surge of interest since the election of President Trump, even in conservative states. And Mr. Bynum was one of their own — a socialist who, along with at least 16 others, appeared on the ballot in primary races across the state of Texas.”
“I Am Running as a Socialist”
BY MICHAEL WALSH
https://pjmedia.com/trending/i-am-running-as-a-socialist/
Socialist always start out by asking questions like, “How can we provide free medical care and internet access to everyone?”, and end up asking, “How can we suppress the food riots?”
America has a rich history of Socialist/Utopian communities beginning in the 1800’s. Few lasted very long. As the soon discovered that not everybody wants to share the same workload or responsibilities. And ultimately they all discover that though all men are created equal, some believe they are just a little more equal than others. Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it (George Santayana).