The Fallacy of Thriving Socialism 

A democratic socialist in Oklahoma? Apparently so. In this week’s Democratic Party primary, a self-proclaimed democratic socialist beat her mainstream rival. 

The candidate pledged her affinity for socialism, telling an interviewer: “Most countries that have socialism, they are thriving.” 

Socialists of all types assert that socialism has and continues to provide for human flourishing.  Moreover, they promise – as Zohran Mamdani did in New York City during his campaign – to “make life better.” 

Is that true?   

In Western Europe, the one country that has been closest to socialism is Portugal.  Portugal is Western Europe’s poorest country, year after year. 

How about in Latin America? Violent Communist and socialist ruling parties, such as Nicaragua’s Sandinista National Liberation Front and Venezuela’s United Socialist Party of Venezuela, have followed Fidel Castro’s lead in looting private businesses and repressing their own people.   

Or, look at Argentina’s stagnation and decline after two decades of state intervention by the socialist Mr. and Mrs. Kirchner: an inflation rate of 211.4% and a poverty rate of 41.7%. 

Decades of communist and socialist leadership did little to better the lives of Ethiopians, Angolans, Mozambiquans, or other Africans. Today’s Eritrea is a case in point: Africa’s least democratic party with the same-old Marxist-Leninist party hacks and the same old dictator since 1993. 

Perhaps China with its ethnic cleansing in Tibet, forced organ harvesting, religious persecution, and Uyghur genocide? 

Is there anywhere one can find “thriving” socialism, the Marxist ideology where the state intervenes in or controls every aspect of financial and economic life?   

People sometimes point to the larger social safety nets of the Nordic countries, the so-called “social democracies.”  But these countries are democracies, not socialist regimes. They have the rule of law, protect fundamental individual liberties, practice free market economics, and have chosen – through elections, not through government fiat – to use petroleum profits and dramatically higher taxes to fund those programs. This is not socialism. 

Furthermore, Marx and Lenin said that government control of all things economic was the first step. The second step is totalitarian control of all parts of life and society (communism). 

So, when a political candidate calls for socialism, are they telling us that they really want us to first give up our economic freedoms and the culture of innovation, charity, and hard work that made America great?   

And, are they telling us that they would be perfectly happy for us to take the next step, one where crushing state power doesn’t just mandate where we work, live, and go to school, but also all other aspects of our life?  Is “socialism” a fig leaf, a smoke screen for outright communist domination? 

Look at all the places where the ideas of Marx, Lenin, and Mao have been implemented, from Laos to Eritrea and from the Soviet Union and Cuba to the Kircheners’ Argentina. Poverty, religious and media persecution, violence, misery, and despair. 

If you are looking for socialism, perhaps you should consider emigrating to one of these thriving socialist alternatives.