Image via AI
Opponents of socialism often cite Cuba, Venezuela, and the former Soviet Union as evidence that the system “doesn’t work.” They argue that, unlike earlier economic arrangements — slavery, feudalism, and capitalism — each of which was explicitly organized around producing wealth, and each of those systems was superior to its predecessor in its capacity to generate it, socialism has failed to create a higher level of economic prosperity.
Critics of socialism miss the mark. Socialism works because its purpose is not wealth creation; the purpose of socialism is economic equality.
Democratic Socialism, guided by democratically elected leaders, carries the legitimacy of popular consent and will advance economic equality through lawful, transparent legislation, unlike the coercion and mass terror that marked the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba.
The concept of economic equality has been widely misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued. If the untutored proponents of economic equality took a moment to study human history, they might discover that the only true instance of economic equality occurred during the era of primitive communism. Ten thousand years ago, before the advent of farming, people were forced to obtain food collectively. Everything that was produced was immediately consumed. There was no property and no wealth, which ensured economic equality in a state of poverty. This is the only circumstance in which true economic equality has ever existed—or can exist.
The idea of equality in wealth is intrinsically self-contradictory — an oxymoron shrouded in utopian dreams. By its very nature, wealth rejects uniformity; it thrives on distinction, accumulation, and inequality. In this light, socialism aims to replace inequality in wealth with equality in poverty.
In reality, it is not merely a matter of redistributing wealth, as most of us have led to believe; the ultimate objective of socialism is the destruction of wealth as the only way economic equality can be achieved in industrial society. Thus, socialism reveals its authentic nature as an Ideology of Poverty.
This ideology spreads like an infectious disease—one that societies must endure before they can build true immunity. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn remarked, “For us in Russia, socialism is a dead dog; for many in the West, it is still a living lion.”
This “dead dog,” once expelled from Russia, found new life in the United States, where it has regained vitality, emerging as a “living lion” within the Democratic Party. The Party has undergone an ideological transformation into a Marxist social democratic entity, attempting to persuade the electorate that this time it is different – this time, socialism is democratic.
As noted earlier, the driving force for any version of socialism is economic “inequality” — the argument socialists have never tired of invoking since the dawn of capitalism. The mantra brought into play by the French Revolution — “War to the palace, peace to the cottage” — is alive and well today in the Democratic Party.
It is no coincidence that the Democratic Party has chosen New York City to launch its direct attack on capitalism. With the fundamental components of socialism firmly in place – a welfare state, high taxation, and extensive government regulations – New York City is an ideal setting for the establishment of a wholly socialist government. Should this endeavor prove successful, the Party will proceed to enforce socialism throughout the state and beyond.
The current American political environment is conducive to the spread of socialism. Numerous warning signs are evident. The most concerning element of the increasing pro-socialist sentiment is the intellectual stagnation present in America’s political dialogue. American political thinking about socialism is trailing behind that of the Russians or Chinese. Neither education, nor upbringing, nor life experiences equip Americans to grasp the magnitude of the socialists’ assault on American institutions.
Consequently, the electorate often elects individuals who are demonstrably unqualified and have failed to possess even a basic understanding of history, economics, or critical thought. A few have even earned notoriety for inconceivable stupidity. Many of them, aware of self-worthlessness, adopt Marxism and can hardly contain their awe and envy at the American enterprise and question its moral validity.
Whether the New Yorkers voted for socialist serfdom knowingly or they have been duped is irrelevant. If people are ignorant or complacent, they deserve the government they elect. As Barack Obama famously said, “Elections have consequences.”
We must be mindful that every ism — communism, socialism, fascism, and the like — has its supporters and beneficiaries. Those who envision themselves on the receiving end, have every reason to think they will be better off with socialism. As Aristotle said about 2,400 years ago:
In a democracy, the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.
We can criticize Zohran Mamdani all we like, but without proper education, America is destined to become a country of triumphant socialism.
Alexander G. Markovsky, Ph.D. in economics and political science, is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research. He is the author of “Anatomy of a Bolshevik” and “Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It.” Mr. Markovsky is the owner and CEO of Litwin Management Services, LLC. He can be reached at alexander.g.markovsky@gmai.com
And, what, pray, is ‘proper’ education? Surely, if this is the key to turning back the great unwashed, then the author incurs a responsibility to his readers to explain precisely what is the meaning of his solution to the issue and exactly how to implement it. From what I have seen and read of American education, the prospects are next to zero for such a change as will be required and the support for doing so to the degree required is non-existent.