Well, the pre-midterm election results didn’t turn out so well for the Republicans, with Democrats making strides in several contests. One area of note is in the Big Apple, where voters overwhelmingly elected Zohran Mamdani to be the next Mayor. He ran as a democratic socialist, which is just a fancy term for a regular socialist who wants Democrat donations.
Anyway, this has sparked a discussion about socialism in general. The Left is crowing about how Mamdani represents a new way forward while simultaneously telling us we don’t know enough about socialism to appreciate it.
Challenge accepted.
socialism
What the Left thinks it means – a viable socioeconomic/political model that works time and time again
What it really means – an non-viable socioeconomic/political model that doesn’t work more often than it works
The most important place to start in this discussion is what socialism actually means. You know, aside from the definition I posed above. Our good friends at Dictionary.com define socialism thus:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
More on this third definition later.
What Leftists say is a key feature of socialism is fairness. Everything is fair, everyone contributes to the overall good, and everything is rainbows, unicorns, and unlimited trips to the salad bar with any meal purchase. Socialism’s PR has gotten so good these days, around two-thirds of Democrats see it in a positive light.
And I can understand the appeal, especially with younger voters. The current capitalist system doesn’t seem to work for anyone but the wealthy, leaving many people out in the cold. People having to take on multiple jobs just to keep their heads above water. Everything’s getting more expensive. Surely there has to be a better way forward.
There is, but socialism ain’t it, kids.
Let’s take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 1620 when the Pilgrims were making their way to what would be called America. Because there were squabbles among the Pilgrims, leaders created a little thing the kids like to call the Mayflower Compact. Although it sounded good on paper and advocated for such things as self-governance and no religious oppression, it was by and large a socialist approach.
And, surprise surprise, it didn’t work! Who could have seen this coming? (I mean aside from anyone who stayed awake in junior high American history from back in my day.)
If you think that was the only time we dabbled in socialism, there’s also Social Security. What started out with good intentions became a socialist nightmare that is running out of money, partially because of demographics, and partially because Congress has been taking money out of it for decades and not returning it.
Then, there’s public education, care through the VA, SNAP, public defenders, and other not-so-goods and service that fall under the socialist umbrella. Even when you have moderately successful concepts like public roads and fire departments, they still aren’t quite socialist because they serve a common good, while socialism just claims to serve. You can count on the remaining hand of the world’s worst shop teacher the number of socialist programs and ideas that have worked to everyone’s satisfaction.
That may be one of the underlying reasons younger voters are okay with socialism: they haven’t been taught shit about the failures of socialism, even on our shores. Sure, they learned all about how the Pilgrims were evil white colonizers who slaughtered Native Americans, but they just didn’t get to the part where they tried their hand at an early version of socialism and got their asses handed to them. But in the defense of public education, they just don’t have time to cover how fucked up socialism is because they have to make room for a deep dive into how Taylor Swift is such a cultural icon.
And I only wish I were half-kidding.
Educational standards going down like a starlet trying to get a movie deal from Harvey Weinstein aside, I don’t think capitalism has made a good enough argument to the past couple of generations, mainly because capitalists know it’s the best thing going today. Even so, it might not hurt to advertise a bit more. I mean, it’s easy to be a socialist when you have the latest iPhone, drink Starbucks on the regular, and make money posting TikTok videos. When the rubber meets the road, though, it’s a lot harder to live in a socialist society.
That’s because one of the dirty little secrets of socialism is it only works as long as they have OPM: Other People’s Money. It’s a pretty simple concept, really. If you’re spending your own money, you tend to be more frugal. If you’re spending someone else’s money, the sky’s the limit, baby!
Socialism works on the same principle. As long as they can take money from the wealthy, things can work. But then it runs into a brick wall called human nature. Even if you’re the most progressive guy or gal (gender count: still 2) out there, at some point you’re going to be confronted with the real possibility you’re putting in more than you’re getting back. Then, you have to make a value judgment: stay within the current system, or high-tail it out of there.
Then, socialism runs into the potential for income erosion. As the wealthier members of a socialist society die off or move on, that not only eliminates their protection money…I mean contributions, it puts more pressure on the next lowest wealth base. Then, if/when they’re off the books, it goes down to the next lowest wealth base.
Blather. Rinse. Repeat.
What most people who subscribe to socialism don’t understand is as long as their is wealth erosion, there will come a time when they’re the wealthiest because everyone else will be poorer than they are. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?
Even if you attempt to dress up socialism by giving it a cool name like Logan or democratic socialism, you’re still going to run into the same problems. And the reason is the same: socialism fucking sucks, man! Although if it were named Logan, it would be cool while it sucked.
Now, remember earlier when I mentioned the third definition of socialism? If not, read up a bit and you’ll see it.
Anyway, it’s interesting to note Marxists used socialism as a lead-in to communism. The way I describe it is this: socialism is communism on pot, and communism is socialism on PCP. By nature, I’ve found socialists by and large aren’t that into violence. You’ll get the occasional socialist with a bike lock and a bad attitude and tries to start something, but most of them are pretty calm. Their hearts are in the right place, as are their facial features because they’re not getting knocked the fuck out.
Communists, on the other hand…well, they’re not exactly the “live and let live” type. Violence is a part of their political brand. I can’t say for certain how many socialists would be okay with communism, but I have to think the number is higher than 1, especially when you consider the Left’s hunger for control. That’s pretty much right out of the communist playbook (or manifesto if you will). It’s almost as if communists knew socialism would fail and further steps would need to be taken.
You know, like cracking skulls and oppression?
I know I’ve shit on socialism worse than if I’d had a Triple Bean Burrito with a side order of salmonella from Taco Bell that’s been sitting in a van in the Mojave Desert since the last time Bon Jovi made a good album (which is never), but I don’t shit on socialists themselves very much. To me, they’re misguided, but have hearts of gold. Or at least would have hearts of gold until their socialist buddies found out and accused them of hoarding wealth.
Having said that, I can’t bring myself to join their ideology because I know too much. I’ve seen the fall of the Soviet Union, the crumbling of the Warsaw Pact countries, and the rise of a more egocentric approach to life in general, none of which bode well for socialism working in this country. Yet, I still wish Zohran Mamdani the best of luck in his attempt to create a socialistic utopia in a city weirder than I am. If he succeeds, I’ll admit freely. If he fails, I’ll mock him endlessly.
Let’s just say I’m betting the under on his success rate.