As the child of a history teacher, and a student of history as well, I was wondering for decades if the lack of teaching on history was going to catch up and bite us. That time is here. The utter lack of understanding of the failures of socialism to achieve its supposed goals is staggering and dangerous.
Of course, definitions of socialism vary, and we have elements of what is called socialism here in the U.S. But those efforts might be better called social safety nets. When we are talking about the takeover of resourses and production, that’s the definition I’m working with. Communism is often considered a violent takeover of these same entities, and there is a slippery slope even here between the two. [There’s not a lot of difference between forced takeover (as Mayor Mamdani is apparently aspiring to) and the strong manipulation of public opinion (always easy in uncertain times) to achieve the same ends.]
A cursory examination of this brand of socialism’s history yields the inevitable conclusion that the tired old “it just hasn’t been tried right yet” argument laughable or a cause of deep-sigh despair. China, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, just to name a few utter failures, are worth taking a serious look at. Economic successes here have come with a loosening of socialist ideas and control, and the introduction of free market ideas and actions. The so-called socialist successes of the Scandinavian countries need a second look as well, as many have backed away from the extremes, and simply ended up with a great number of safety nets in the countries that are far more homogeneous in background and thought that we are here in the U.S. The knee-jerk response that the Nordic countries are complete socialist successes is inaccurate and outdated.
Since we love in a society where dialog is often “if you’re not A, then you must be Z, and I hate you,” let me give some context. I think that the resistance to capitalism has two huge drawbacks. One is that much if not most of the stoking of anti-capitalism is based on jealousy, which will always exist in the human heart and therefore will always be there for folks to stir up. That is never going to change; it’s part of human nature, and the stirring up of envy never serves the personal or public good. It’s an individual and social weakness.
The other drawback is the correct abhorrence of greed, which has become synonymous in some folks’ minds with capitalism itself. True, many capitalists are greedy. So are many socialists, communists, “everyday workers,” and pretty much folks in every line of work and belief system. There will always be greed, and a quick look at the eventual leaders of both capitalistic and socialist empires shows that greed is as common as breathing. It’s not limited to any one system of belief, and it’s never going to be “solved” by adopting a socialist economic model.
In fact, it’s been posited, I think correctly, that the forced competition of capitalism has led to a place where honesty and hard work are rewarded, as opposed to where socialism inevitably slides from mental and emotional dreamland into the gradual eroding of hard work and motivation. (Again, do a deeper historical dive into what happens, not what “should” happen.)
Also seeming to be lost in the historical picture is how often socialism ends up being a dictatorship. Again, look at the countries mentioned above. I’ll leave it to others to examine the reasons why, but the historical record is obvious. Socialism has ultimately led to dictatorships in more countries than we are comfortable looking at. In our season of “No Kings,” it’s ironic that so many here are supporting a system that will likely make kingship look appealing by comparison.
These are all quite broad statements, and there is a world of comments and assertions and “evidence” that can be expressed on these topics. But I’m simply asking for an honest consideration of what I’ve expressed here.
Leave a Reply