Socialism: The Word That Deceived A Generation

Why you aren’t a socialist, and why identifying as a democratic socialist doesn’t make it better

by Alexander Hammond

According to a recent YouGov poll, favourability of socialism amongst young Americans is at an all-time high. In May 2015, socialism had a net favourability rating of +5 amongst 18-24 year olds. Between then and February 2016, it more than trebled to +17 – almost on par with young Britons (+18.)  While most Americans continue to have a more favourable view of capitalism (51%), than socialism (29%), the current trend is worrying.

It has become fashionable among young people to identify as socialist without fully understanding the term and its implications. Below, I will show that those who identify as “socialist” or “democratic socialist” are far more likely to be a social democrat, and yes, the difference is important.

Millennials are too young to remember that 100 million people died and countless more lived in poverty in the pursuit of socialism during the 20^th century in the countries of the former Soviet bloc. So enamoured are they by the social democracies of Sweden, Norway and Denmark that they have failed to notice the nearest examples of true socialism that currently exist: Venezuela and Cuba.

In Cuba, average salary is $25 a month, the government throws its opponents to prison and regulates what the population can read and write. Venezuela is in the middle of a full-blown economic meltdown. In spite of massive oil reserves, the country is experiencing drastic food shortages and modern day, government mandated, slavery. A new law allows the Venezuelan government to force the citizenry to work the fields for 60-day periods, or longer, if the “circumstances merit.” These are hardly the socialist havens of individual freedom and tolerance that we hear about across college campuses.

When assessing socialism, we have to start with Marx and his belief that all accumulation of private property must be abolished, that all industry should be nationalized (yes that means that your Starbucks coffee would be made by a sullen and lazy government official – such as the one you have encountered at your local DMV) and that any wealth should be divided “equally” amongst all in society.

Marx believed that this would happen as a result of a violent revolution, with the proletariat rising up against the owners of capital. However, by the late 19^th century in the most industrialised country in the world, England, this revolution had yet to take place. The fear that the predicted revolution would not occur, led many followers of Marx to convene and create what has come to be known as “Fabian Socialism,” the progenitor of modern democratic socialism.

Think of it like this: Fabians remained committed to the ultimate “goal” of socialism, but aimed to get there by using the democratic process. They wanted to push socialist policies incrementally and democratically, rather than through one big battle or proletariat uprising. Winning through many small victories, whilst avoiding a single large battle is of course, how the namesake of Fabian socialism, the Roman General Fabius Maximus was able to defend the Roman Republic and eventually beat the invading force of Hannibal’s army in the Second Punic War.

Those who subscribe to democratic socialism should ask themselves: Is the end goal socialism and is all that socialism entails really what I want? Or is all I want free college, free healthcare and a welfare state for those in need?

If you agree with the second sentiment, then you are a social democrat, and yes the difference between a socialist and social democrat is important. The noun being “democrat,” rather than “socialist,” means that bringing about socialism “democratically” is at the core of your beliefs. The noun being ‘democrat’ and the adjective being ‘social’ means that being a democrat is at the core of your belief whilst ‘socialist’ is merely the augmentation. Therefore, you would be a democrat with socialist tendencies rather than vice versa, which would imply a socialist with democratic tendencies.

Those enamoured with the Scandinavian model should also consider the problems experienced by social democracies. Consider the criticism Lars Lokke Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister, had for Senator Bernie Sanders following the latter’s numerous claims that Denmark was a socialist nation. We have a “market economy,” the Prime Minister declared. In fact, Denmark has an extremely high level of both social and economic freedom (the 4^th and 22^nd freest worldwide, respectively). Neither are compatible with socialism. Why? Keep reading.

There has yet to be a nation that has adopted a socialist economic policy and has also been able to maintain socially liberal and tolerant governmental policies. Without economic liberalisation, a nation cannot have social liberalism. One of the left’s most prominent heroes, Che Guevara, even went as far as to say “we must eliminate all newspapers; we cannot make a revolution with a free press.” He also ordered the execution of thousands of anti-revolutionaries, capitalists and homosexuals, quote “by firing squad, without knowing if they were fully guilty.”

Whether it was 1974 Ethopia, 1960’s Cuba or 20^th century Soviet Union, socialism has always been followed by brutal regimes, starvation and citizens whom are less free on every objective measure when compared to their capitalist equivalents. This is because as socialist policies falter, the government must be ever more brutal to keep its citizens in line. Official documents from the Soviet archives containing the records of approximately 800,000 executions is just one notable example of this brutalism.

Here I conclude and implore you to ask yourself, do you really believe in the nationalisation of all enterprises and the complete abolition of private wealth, or do just like the idea of free college and healthcare? If you espouse the latter, please embrace your new title of social democrat, take pleasure in all the joys capitalism has brought to your life, and enjoy your holidays in Sweden – the market economy.