The False Revival of Socialism and What it Means for America
By: Chasing Common Sense
Tags: Capitalism, United States, Bernie Sanders, Politics, Socialism

The term “socialism” has been thrown around quite a bit by politicians in recent times. Left for dead after the Cold War, it has seemingly been revived by Bernie Sander’s 2016 and 2020 presidential bids, and been made mainstream by new politicians like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). Paraded as a “political system for the masses,” many people, particularly of the younger generation, are beginning to question whether the U.S. wouldn’t be better off with a socialist system, in which everyone would theoretically have equal opportunity.

According to a 2018 Gallup survey, 51% of Americans aged 18 to 29 have a positive opinion of socialism, as do 57% of Democrats overall. The reason behind this is relatively clear: American capitalism is struggling. Between 1970 and today, the top 1% of people have increased their share of the national income from 20% to 40%. Average weekly wage rates are stuck, and affordable housing for the working class is harder to find. And now, in the midst of a pandemic, millions have lost their jobs, descended further into poverty, and are struggling to recover financially.

However, before everyone becomes an advocate of socialism, it’s imperative that it is defined properly. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, socialism is defined as, “various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

With this definition in mind, it becomes clear that socialism isn’t nearly as popular as one might think. Currently, there are no politicians that I am aware of who hold elected offices and advocate for the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. While politicians such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claim to be socialists, they don’t fit the above definition. Neither of them want to end capitalism; instead, they are arguing for the government to use its power to implement social justice within a capitalist framework. Their views are actually in line with social democracy, not socialism.

Unlike socialism, social democracy isn’t an incredibly radical ideology. In fact, various social democratic ideas have been prominent in United States politics since the days of the Founding Fathers. The reason some politicians call themselves “socialists” is because they want to sound more radical and exciting than they truly are.

Conversely, on the other side of the aisle, many conservatives frame ideas that they consider radical or disagreeable as “socialist.” In this case, conservatives use the label of “socialist” in order to make policies seem more dangerous, frightening, and destabilizing than they really are. For instance, conservatives widely denounced the so-called “Green New Deal” for allegedly being a blatant attempt to implement socialism in the United States. An article published by Real Clear Politics, a conservative news site, said this:

“It is important to remember that only a handful of the proposals in the Green New Deal involve climate change, and that they are simply the fig leaves covering up the naked socialist takeover of the U.S. economy that is being proposed. Free college? Check. Free home remodeling? Check. Massive federal investment in mass transit and other infrastructure? Check. Guarantee of high-paying jobs for everyone? Check. Free health care? Check. Free housing? Check. And to sum it all up: Free lunch? Check.”

Regardless of your opinion on the Green New Deal or any of its inner workings, it actually has very little to do with socialism. Socialism has nothing to do with government programs related to education, healthcare, or anything other than the economy. In fact, while conservatives were denouncing the deal as “a socialist takeover,” real socialists were denouncing it for not representing socialism at all. For instance, an article published by Shamus Cook, a true socialist, denounced both Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for allegedly conjuring up a “mythology” of “capitalism’s tranquil past, a simpler time that delivered stability, fairness, and progress.” He then goes on to denounce the Green New Deal as a futile attempt to “save capitalism.” He writes:

“A Green New Deal is a fine demand, but ultimately the project is hopeless if it’s executed under a capitalist umbrella. Only a socialist Green New Deal can deliver a thorough transformation of society demanded by the situation, coordinating the vast wealth and technology of the country while inviting more nations into the project, since climate change is as global as capitalism. A socialist Green New Deal will require a more democratic state where the major polluters, banks, and other large corporations are made public utilities. Making a Green New Deal-sized economic pivot requires the economy be coordinated to this goal, a mission impossible when the corporations are privately owned by profit seekers, pulled in various directions by the dictates of the market and shareholders, who use their wealth to push policy makers in their respective directions.”

This all sounds a lot more radical than anything you hear Democratic politicians espousing. While many Democrats criticize private banks and corporations, you never hear Democratic politicians saying we should completely abolish all private banks and corporations altogether.

Whether you like the ideas advocated by people like Bernie Sanders or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or any other generally left-wing Democratic politicians or not, very few of their ideas genuinely qualify as “socialist” in any meaningful sense.

With this in mind, let’s talk about why true socialism has never, and will never work.

Under socialism, the government runs everything related to the economy. One key tenet to this is central planning — the government decides what crops are planted, what clothing to manufacture, and even who may work, and where. Throughout history, central planning has been a colossal failure — Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and the Soviet Union are all prime examples of this.

Another major tenet of socialism is, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This means that everyone is required to work as much as they can, and that everyone will get as much as they need. While this may sound great, it’s ultimately the seed of socialism’s failure. If one has to work as much as their abilities allow but gets rewarded based not on their work but on their needs, then naturally they will put in the least amount of effort as possible. Selfish human nature dictates that this attitude will be uniform amongst everyone. If people can’t be rewarded for their labor, ingenuity, or creativity, the economy may limp along, but it won’t prosper. Pure socialism offers few incentives to excel at one’s work, create new industries, or invest in the future. It is simply not suited to human nature.

It is true that Capitalism can certainly get out of hand. Right now, we have the worst maldistribution of wealth and income since the 1930’s, and it’s only getting worse. The disparity of income and opportunity must be solved. However, Socialism isn’t the answer. Without free markets, private property, and the rule of law (to enforce contracts, regulations, and private property), our economy can’t prosper.

I am not saying that the government needs to take a hands-off approach to the economy. I think that there needs to be a much stricter regulation of big business, more incentives and help for start-ups, and more protections for individuals as opposed to corporations. However, none of that would add up to socialism — not even close. Pure socialism is historically an overly-idealistic failure that leads to chaos, corruption, and complete economic peril. Economist Milton Friedman said it best: “ A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a higher degree of both.”