Category Archives: Socialism

biss for governor

Why I Don’t Support Daniel Biss for Governor of Illinois

I Cannot Support Biss for Governor

Daniel Biss has made a splash in Illinois – especially in Chicago’s north shore – because of his progressives policy pronouncements and avid social media use.  While certainly a committed and respectable servant, I do not support Daniel Biss for Governor because, on top of promoting misguided policy such as a statewide $15 minimum wage even when that would create inequality within the state and likely lead to layoffs in cheap areas downstate, he willfully promoted a democratic socialist.

Democratic socialism is a dangerous ideology.  It wraps a failed economic platform inside the cozy phrase “democratic” to make it more palatable — it’s sort of like using bacon to make any nauseating food seem edible.  Sure, you get bacon, but you’re also eating garbage.

And with democratic socialism, socialism’s modifier belies danger.  Socialism has never once worked in the history of mankind.  Only poverty and death have followed experiments in the popular control of resources and production.



(Democratic) Socialism Doesn’t Work

Democratic socialists blame these failures on the imposition of socialism from an elite that sought only enrichment and did not act out benevolence.  They think that by initiating socialism through collective action — through the democratic embrace of their ideals — all will embrace socialism and the economy will thrive.

That, of course, ignores the impossibility of ever using democracy to determine the socially optimal ownership and distribution of resources.  It similarly overlooks the fundamental economic issues that will forever cripple socialism: Eliminating incentives destroys the will to work, decreases efficiency, and leads to an economy that stutters, gasps, and crashes.

Socialism, too, invites tyranny as the spoils of the state increase.  An individual or faction able to gain power have at their disposal the means of the economy.  They can receive bribes or kickbacks in return for lucrative government contracts that define the economy; they can skim from a bloated treasury; they can distribute the means of economic production to themselves and their cronies.  This only worsens problem societies already face with malicious actors trying to use the state for personal enrichment.  With more spoils come more bad actors.



Not a Party for Those Who Embrace Failed Ideologies

But the Biss for Governor campaign saw it fit to put a democratic socialist on its ticket as Lieutenant Governor (eventually dropping the candidate because of his views towards Israel, not his fervent love for sugar-coated [expletive]).  Daniel Biss himself, after a botched vetting job that resulted in embarrassment for the haphazard campaign, decided to elevate the far-left to a position of local and perhaps statewide prominence despite the danger’s of the foolish ideology.

And that’s why I cannot support Biss for Governor.  His eagerness to empower socialists and to promote socialism cannot be supported, even were I to agree with some of his other policies.  Yes, the socialist has since left the ticket, but the stain on Biss remains clear: He’s willing to embrace a destructive and ultimately tyrannical ideology that should have no place in modern America.

As Republicans should do to candidates who endorse or further Trumpism, I will do the same for the Democratic Party and not support Biss for Governor.





is bernie sanders a socialist

Is Bernie Sanders a Socialist?

He has many left-wing views, but is Bernie Sanders a socialist?

Throughout his failed bid for the presidency, Bernie Sanders gained attention for his left-wing ideology that, if ever implemented, would dramatically expand the size and scope of the federal government.  To his right-wing critics, those ideas reeked of socialism; to those on the center-left, they seemed impossible to enact, though not entirely without merit.  Is Bernie Sanders a socialist, an adherent to a reviled ideology, or a left-wing ideologue who stops (just) short of socialist goals?

Despite his desire to nationalize healthcare (which, yes, is a socialist policy) and more tightly regulate the economy, Bernie Sanders is not a socialist.  Rather, he is a social democrat, a person who embraces the market, but wants the government to provide a strong social welfare net and play an active role in regulating multi-party transactions.  Many proclaimed socialists, especially those in European countries, support social democratic policies, largely because their more radical dreams couldn’t come to fruition.

Importantly, social democracy is not socialism.  In a socialist economy, the state owns the means of production and centrally planned the economy.  Private property remained and some small businesses still exist, but the state controls the vast majority of the economy in hopes of limiting the accumulation of private wealth (capital) and ensuring and equitable distribution of goods.  Bernie Sanders is not a socialist, clearly, as he doesn’t advocate the state taking over the economy.  Social democracy, Sanders’ actual ideology, keeps capital private; the private sector – not the state – control the means of production.  Government spending, regulation, and taxation redistribute privately created wealth to provide baseline equality for all people.



The Scandinavian nations that people identify as socialist – and which Bernie Sanders touts as idealized socialist examples – actually practice social democracy.  Denmark, for instance, has one of the freest markets in the world and its leaders bristle at Sanders’ characterization of the country as “socialist.”  This “Nordic model” allows people to compete for jobs, for capital holders to develop new business and amass wealth, and for the economy to thrive sans state control.  But the governments do provide a number of benefits, paid for by relatively high taxes.  In others, the perfect example of social democracy.

Bernie Sanders is not a socialist (despite his numerous claims to be a democratic socialist) and misapplies the term with a surprising frequency.  And that’s rather dangerous.  Socialism, of course, is a failed ideology that simply cannot succeed.  It invites tyrannical government control while stripping the incentives needed to create economic growth.  Even its supposed democratic variety – that is, democratic socialism – has these problems: Democratic socialism seeks the same state-centralized ends but hopes to reach them through democratic maneuvers, rather than having it imposed by the government.  Sanders’ popularity and misapplication of socialism makes voters – especially the young voters that comprised his coalition – view socialism favorably because they don’t understand it.  By and large, proclaimed supporters of socialism mistake socialism for social democracy and so press for socialism when it’s really the latter they desire.  



These mistakes enable the resurgence of true socialist adherents as their label no longer immediately turns off voters.  It also distorts real policy considerations as people push for socialism without understanding the ideology and by using false examples that actually describe an offshoot of capitalism, an offshoot in which Sanders and many of his supporters believe.  So, is Bernie Sanders a socialist?  No: Sanders is not a socialist, but his inability to grasp the difference between (democratic) socialism and social democracy enables the mainstreaming of extremists who push an ideology that fails in theory and practice.





what is democratic socialism

What is Democratic Socialism?

What is Democratic Socialism? Lipstick on a Pig

A new mania has gripped the American left: Democratic socialism.  The ideology embraced and popularized by Bernie Sanders has seen rapid growth, predominately among young political actors who hope to fundamentally overhaul the American economic system, but recognize that the traditional “socialist” label only polarizes.  So, to dress the dead ideology, they’ve conveniently stuck a loved word — “democratic” — in front of it and have taken their anger to the internet to commence a “political revolution” (whatever that means) one meme at a time.  With that said, what is democratic socialism, really?

Even democratic socialists struggle to answer that question.  The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) lauds “our socialism” as a means to “a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution” of goods, presumably, and “non-oppressive relationships.”

That sounds wonderful until you realize it’s the meaningless collection of buzzwords that drive masters of the English language insane.



 

What is democratic socialism’s goal and how is it implemented?

What does this mean?  How does a government implement the popular control of resources and production?

Herein lies the rub.  Democratic socialism organizes around a core belief that the people should control resources and production through democracy.  But, at best, this is impossible, and, at worst, it’s a sure road to oppression and tyranny.

Democratic ownership and allocation of resources and production immediately cannot naturally happen because, in a nation of any size, considerable disagreement about the control of resources will arise, making any sort of popular, or democratic, agreement impossible.  But that assumes democratic socialists want all individuals to equally participate in incredibly complex decisions, naturally a terrible idea and an impossible feat of coordination.

So perhaps democratic socialists don’t mean an active democratic control but rather democratic control through free and fair elections in which various candidates submit proposals for how state-owned/centralized resources and capital should be distributed among the population.  Except this would also fall to pieces immediately.



Minimal-winning coalitions explain why.  The theory, introduced by William Riker, contends that any political party or faction would expand to a size just big enough to win an election or ensure passage of a desired bill.  Doing so enables the coalitions members to compromise as little as possible.

democratic socialism what is it

Take a simplistic example in which a five-member legislature debates a stimulus bill that needs majority support.  The legislators have ideal points (the amount of spending they believe to be most effective for the economy) as follows: A) $100 billion, B) $75 billion, C) $60 billion, D) $40 billion, E) $25 billion.  Lawmaker A introducers her $100 billion spending bill, but no one signs on.  So she proposes an admit to lower spending to $75 billion and lawmaker B then supports the measure.  They still need one more to guarantee passage and so offer another amendment bringing the number down to to $60 billion and achieve the minimal winning coalition.  If the coalition tried to attract more support, they could only do so by lowing the stimulus and moving the successful package further away from their ideal points.  In short, a minimal winning coalition (versus an expansive supermajority) ensures legislation that maximizes ideal points for its members.

Of course, that problem can be alleviated by mandating supermajority support for bill passage, but that moves away from the proclaimed goal of popular control.

This logic extends to any number of issues a polity faces.  Coalitions seek maximum benefit even though it my displease others.  Consider, too, that across a broad range of issues, some coalition members might care little and simply support the proposals offered by concerned members.  Such logrolling (to be a bit unfair) helps establish “long coalitions,” or parties (see “The Party Decides” for an in-depth explanation) that exist to win elections and deliver ideological goals to its constituency without necessarily turning outside of itself for the support needed to pass legislation (action that would necessarily require compromise and thus a deviation from ideal points).



A democratic socialist society in which each election became a referendum on the distribution of society’s resources and goods would naturally incite many arguments about optimization and result in displeasure for some, perhaps many.  Any given coalition could become malicious, recognizing that by establishing a minimal winning distributional coalition it could monopolize government resources and simply ignore the needs of its opposition.  Democracy and democratic control could actually exacerbate the very inequality against which democratic socialists rail.

So if direct and indirect democratic control won’t work, perhaps DSA members would prefer the traditional socialist central planning in which the state controls the means of production and unelected technocrats distribute goods based either on contribution or need, both of which are purportedly democratic.

Except that’s not democratic and it invites corruption and kleptocracy.

Those are the best case scenarios: It simply doesn’t work and the system collapses or enacts market-based reforms to salvage itself (some argue that democratic socialism embraces the market so long as all needs among the citizenry are met.  If we classify those needs as solvable by welfare benefits, we’ve described social democracy, not democratic socialism.  Scandinavian countries, heralded as democratic socialist utopias are actually market-based social democracies).

democratic socialism

At its worst, the democratic ownership of the resources and production simply invites tyranny.  Democracies already invite corrupt actors who seek, largely through democratic means, to assume and consolidate power for their own vanity or profit.  Add to that natural incentive borne from the inherent corruption of humankind the spoils of state-owned resources, and demagogues have every incentive to gain power no matter the cost because its payoffs are so high.

Controlling the means of production means controlling society.  The leader and her political party can reward loyalty while punishing opponents into poverty.  They can skim from the state and, by starving opposition of economic life, nip their ability to meaningfully compete in elections.

Democratic socialism’s implementation by any of the means outlined above simply enables and invites tyranny through centralized economic control.



So, what is democratic socialism?

In short, a disaster waiting to happen.  The ideology relies on lofty dreams that ignore human reality, as evidenced by the entirety of our history.  It assumes a level of beneficence amongst all people that simply does not exist and dreams of utopia without outlining the steps needed to get there.  Like any fairytale, it arouses the imagination, but could never be implemented.

What is democratic socialism?  A resuscitation of a failed ideology that either could never exist or, if brought into existence, would quickly devolve into tyranny.



america decline

The Decline of a Nation

 

Demagoguery destroys nations.

America.  Conceived under tyranny and borne by patriots fighting for freedom and liberty.

Its ideals – our ideals – ring through our founding documents.  Our Declaration of Independence boldly states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The Constitution recognizes fundamental and natural liberties destined to remain ever untouched by the corruption of mischievous faction.  These rights, to be heralded above all, constrained government and set forth the vision of our nation: A state dedicated to the equal liberty of all its residents.

declaration of independence

To be sure, our nation has not always lived up to its ideals.  The tree of liberty has been occasionally watered with the blood of citizens fighting for righteousness and always with an eye towards expanding liberty, both within and outside our country.

But now our country finds itself in unchartered territory.  For once, the denigrating forces of demagoguery have consumed enough voters to find itself in the Oval Office.  This presents dual problems for the country.

First, Donald Trump’s gross incompetence and actions motivated solely by animus, whether at racial or religious minorities or those who dare criticize him, threaten the global order and the continued democratic traditions here at home.  His political career started by alleging incorrectly that the country’s first black president was born in Kenya, not the United States.

While campaigning for president, he called for a complete ban on Muslims entering the country; claimed that challenger Ted Cruz’s further had been involved in the JFK assassination plot (another lie); called for Hillary Clinton to be jailed; and continuously railed (incorrectly, again) that outside forces would collude to steal the election from him.

national enquirer cruz oswold
Trump pushed this obviously false story in hopes of hurting Ted Cruz’s presidential bid.



Now, as president, he’s wrongly furthered the notion that 3 to 5 million ballots had been cast illegally.  He called Russian interference into the 2016 election a “witch-hunt” and “hoax.”  His tweets and virulent diatribes against the media as well as other foundations of our democracy threaten long-standing democratic mores and encourage millions of voters to live in willing ignorance.

Secondly, and intimately related to the dangers Donald Trump himself poses, his core supporters fervently embrace and believe all that Trump says – and only what Trump says.  That endangers democracy as the only person who can reach and influence millions of Americans is Donald Trump, a man whose lies as president already near 1,000.

trump fake news
Not one Trump supporter can actually explain why CNN is “fake news.”

These supporters have, by and large, foregone the values that make America great.  They care little about the Constitution or the democratic norms that have long brought success to our grand experiment.  Fundamental freedoms and liberties mean little so long as their abrogation benefits Donald Trump.  Charlie Sykes best described the phenomena when he decried conservatism’s morphing into an ideology that abandoned principles to instead annoy liberals.



Trump supporters lust for, or seeming desire, authoritarianism led by Trump (who many proclaim to be the “God Emperor”).  Demagoguery’s potent appeal leave many inebriated from the violent, ignorant, and condescending rhetoric from a man whose cult of personality attracts the constitutionally and ideologically ignorant.  And to them, Trump can do no wrong and his actions need not be motivated by the pursuit of constitutionalism or constitutional rights.

Bizarre propaganda.
Bizarre propaganda.

Now, their fervent belief that press critical of Trump is at best “fake news” and at worst, as adviser Kellyanne Conway put it, “unpatriotic.”  That precludes them from learning about policy, truly judging Donald Trump’s character, and challenging their fanaticism.  Instead, they turn to the likes of Fox News, which has portrayed itself as a de facto state media outlet, often ignoring information or revelations that would hurt Trump while attacking liberals or Democrats in a (succeeding) effort to further tribalize political divisions.

This leaves the country with increased polarization driven not so much by ideology but by different sets of facts and different truths, as irrational and impossible as that may be.  It’s possible these voters cannot be reached by any outlet with integrity.  Would that extend to Democratic politicians or activists?  Probably.  Divisions, then, may be insurmountable.



Such a phenomenon, of course, is neither new nor confined to Trump supporters.  Factions motivated by demagoguery have arisen throughout American history.  Democracy has long been known to suffer from a demagoguery problem, but America has largely remained safe from such forces due to a fervent belief in natural rights and our Constitution – democratic mores, in the worlds of Alexis de Tocqueville.  But as mentioned above, those democratic mores seem to be disappearing, perhaps as collective memories of the horrors perpetuated by illiberal and autocratic regimes fades.

The far-left also suffers from such a problem.  Democratic socialists and their even more radicalized comrades similarly distort history and facts to abandon constitutional rights and advocate instead for a revolution – democratic or otherwise – to change the regime.  They, however, number far fewer than those on the Trumpian right and so, for now, pose less a threat to our democracy’s success.

Socialism, of course, has never worked.
Socialism, of course, has never worked.



And so we see ourselves in the midst of our nation’s decline.  Liberties, rights, and democratic behavior becomes increasingly unimportant to large swaths of the population interested only in promoting their tribe (in this case, Donald Trump).  We’ve been here before and we’ve already emerged a stronger nation.  But it’s always taken a national emergency or collective, bipartisan action, the likes of which seems unlikely in this highly polarized time.

The best remedy may be a return to fundamental American values.  We must promote natural rights and use our history as a common building block to unify the nation and return political discourse to how we can best collectively protect and further these liberties to all Americans.

democratic socialism

Democratic Socialism: A Disastrous Ideology

Democratic Socialism must be avoided

What is Democratic Socialism?

Bernie Sanders’ surprisingly resonant campaign introduced a new phrase into our political lexicon: Democratic Socialism.  The phrase seeks to rhetorically touch up “socialism,” an ideology rightly associated with death, despair, and disaster.  Democratic socialism, however, is a catastrophe wrapped in a seemingly innocent movement.  Tt should be avoided and shunned at all costs.

Democratic socialism strives to combine the forces of democracy with social ownership of enterprise — in other words, it hopes to establish a socialist system.  Preceding “socialism” with “democratic” doesn’t modify socialism.  Socialism’s goal is itself democratic in theory: Centralized ownership benefits the masses rather than those with capital (capitalists).  The phrase “democratic socialism” solely seeks to distinguish this vision from the Soviet Union’s Marxist-Leninism, not modify socialist goals.

Similarly, “social ownership of enterprise” amounts to no less than the nationalization of industry and the centralization of production.  Only by the government owning the means of production could enterprise ever achieve social — ie, democratic; ie, lay — ownership.

So democratic socialism offer socialism, but by a better name.

And socialism, of course, does not work, for it quickly descends into despotism while destroying economies.



bernie sanders democratic socialism

Descent to Tyranny

History proves that statement: All socialist experiments led to autocratic, repressive states that deprived their citizens of natural rights. Democracy itself tends towards self-destruction through demagogues who subvert constitutions and strive for self-serving authoritarianism.  Democratic socialism would remove the republican safeguards that prevent demagogic takeover while increasing the riches of office — subvert the constitution, establish unilateral government control, and enjoy the spoils of all nationalized industries.

In other words, the leader, or leading party, has every reason to bend the economy to their desires.  Tyranny of the minority ensues, with the beneficiaries of the centralized system fighting the majority of the population, necessarily involving coercive forces and a seizure of rights (and wholly destroying the democratic socialist vision).

Destruction of the Economy

Even in the idealized world in which the government remains true to democratic virtue and does not succumb to natural human desires to enrich oneself, socialism — and so democratic socialism — falls short of all stated goals.  It destroys the economy by ignoring human nature.

All socialist societies dream of eventual classlessness (which, combined with the abolition of private property, amounts to communism) with the centralized means of production that supposedly serves the (democratic) masses.  It ignores market forces in place of government-decided prices and output (it is impossible for the government to determine optimal quality and price; in attempting to do so, it will be surely be swayed by some minority — a further imposition of minority tyranny as a select few decide the availability of goods for general purchase).



Without incentives and with central planning, the economy quickly stagnates.  Human nature requires incentives to spur productivity and innovation.  Without the ability to reap rewards for hard work — with the government guaranteeing an outcome — worker productivity and the standard the living decline precipitously.  Output then declines, which either forces prices to rise (as they would in a market) or the government subsidizes consumers and producers to maintain a certain price level, straining government coffers and causing debt to spiral, or a government-enforced price (without supplying subsidies) quickly leads to scarcity when production halts as its cost quickly outstep income.  Either way, the economy tumbles and the standard of living plummets.

democratic socialism
The revolution thrust Cuba into abject poverty.

Conclusion

Democratic socialism is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  The phrase itself does not modify its fundamental belief in a socialized economy.  Socialism always seeks to be democratic, but because of human nature — because of demagogues and the ease with which a corrupted socialist state can be used to enrich oneself — always descends to tyranny.



The economy similarly suffers.  Central planning ignores incentives, and thus human nature.  Historically and theoretically, socialism leads to dramatic declines in the standard of living.  Only pain and suffering increases.

And so democratic socialism must be avoided.  Democratic socialists must be spurned.  Those seeking to overhaul the economic system into one that has never once worked must never gain power.

Socialism Doesn’t Work

Learn from History

How soon we forget.  How quickly collective memory fades.  How poorly schooling covers recent history.

How shameful that the country’s youngest voters gravitate towards an economic theory that has never once worked.

Voters between 18 and 29 years of age view socialism – which has resulted in countless failed experiments that doomed countries and resulted in millions of death – more favorably than capitalism.

socialism doesn't work

This aligns well with the recent Democratic primary: Self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders dominated among young leftists whereas Hillary Clinton thrived with middle-aged and older liberal Democrats better versed in the fatal conceit of socialism.

What is socialism?

Socialism, which involves the government centralizing, nationalizing, and controlling the means of production, never works in practice.  The Soviet Union should be the most glaring example of socialism’s discontents.  While the USSR never implemented true communism – they settled for a derivation of Marxism, further perverted by despotic repression – it fully implemented collectivism.  And its economy utterly failed.

An initial postwar boom driven by massive fiscal investments in heavy industry – economic growth can be attained even in collectivist environments when enormous resources are thrust upon a given sector; however, that growth is neither efficient nor sustainable – led to epic economic stagnation that the Soviet Union tried to alleviate through market-based reforms.  In other words, the world’s greatest socialist experiment turned to capitalism to salvage its state (and, in the end, it still could not).  This also says nothing of the unfathomable human cost, both in terms of death, poverty, and suffering, that accompanied the failed endeavor.



Real-World Socialism

Incentives matter and under true socialism, with government owning property and the means of production, there are no productive incentives.  Individuals have no reason to innovate or search for profit – a quest that does create jobs and drives down costs while boosting the standard of living for a nation and all its inhabitants.  China, though ostensibly socialist, has realized the need for incentives and thus has implemented many market reforms.

Communist Cuba has entirely failed, resulting in unspeakable poverty and a continuing flood of refugees escaping the villainous regime.

Venezuelan socialism has destroyed the once-vibrant Latin American country.

Scandinavian countries, often touted as socialist successes, are not, in fact, socialist.  Sweden and Finland are among the world’s most competitive countries.  Socialism spurs no competition (and competition drives employment and high standards of living).  Denmark, which Bernie Sanders esteems as the dream socialist state, takes offense at such a label and prides its market economy.  Another tidbit: the public services provided by Denmark are not exemplary, Denmark has privatized many infrastructural elements, and there’s much doubt about the welfare state’s sustainability.  Denmark’s welfare state doesn’t replace the (labor) market – it furthers it.



Socialism vs. Social Welfare

Perhaps favorable views of socialism stem from ignorance

Socialism is not a robust welfare program, but rather the centralization and state-ownership of the means of production.  Government controls capital and industry; the economy is planned centrally with no regard to individual desires, profit incentives, or human capital.

Welfare is not socialism.  A social safety net through services such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and the Earned Income Tax Credit provide for seniors and the poor, helping the latter compete – and hopefully thrive – in a robust labor market.  Welfare is not about stripping from individuals the means of production but rather by helping labor market entrants and ensuring an equal starting (but not finishing) ground for all.

The younger generations who favorably view socialism may well confound the two concepts.  Couple this with fading collective memories of the Soviet Union’s economic failure, massive human toll, and ultimate dissolution, and today’s youth may yearn for a theoretically appealing – but in reality appalling – economic program.  The Great Recession and general income stagnation makes many lust for change of any sort.  Unfortunately, critical thought rarely accompanies such lust.



Capitalism is imperfect, no doubt.  But capitalism – and capitalism only – has led to remarkable economic growth and a breath-taking rise in our standard of living.  It’s produced wealth unimaginable just 200 years ago and product creation in so rapid a pace that the size of a computer dropped 99 percent in just four decades, while simultaneously becoming many orders of magnitude more powerful.

Embracing an economic ideology that has always failed over markets and competition is simply foolish.  Today’s left must not ever embrace socialism.