As polls report higher numbers of millennials claiming to be socialist (they don’t have a clue what they’re talking about) and spiking membership for Democratic Socialists of America, let’s try to absorb these words of the late Russian human rights advocate and gulag survivor Alexander Solshenitsyn:
“In different places over the years I have had to prove that socialism, which to many Western thinkers is a sort of kingdom of justice, was in fact full of coercion, of bureaucratic greed and corruption and avarice, and consistent within itself that socialism cannot be implemented without the aid of coercion.”
Refugees from socialism – Russians, Cubans, Vietnamese – all tell the same story. Socialism is not what romantics in the West think it is. The system is coercive, by its very nature. Give it enough time and enough crises, and socialist states always morph into even more coercive communist states.
College campuses are infested today with a political correctness – and a tragic ignorance of history – that has students singing the praises of socialism, a system that promises free stuff and delivers scarcity.
A year ago — on the Ides of March — I published an essay in the Federalist that explored this phenomenon: “Socialism’s Bloody History Shows Millennials Should Think Twice Before Supporting It.” I zeroed in on the case of communist hero Nikolai Bukharin, who was executed in 1937, after the show trials of Soviet strongman Josef Stalin. It’s a natural progression when a “vanguard” of the people is blindly entrusted with too much power. That’s socialism in a nutshell: too much power in the hands of too few people. If you mention this to any pro-Socialist millennial, they are sure to pull out the talking point that theirs is a different brand of socialism, akin to the sort we see in Scandinavian countries. To them it means social harmony through things like bike-share programs, recycling, free education, and easy housing. I understand, I understand. The problem is that such freebies are the bait of socialism which cannot help but invite the switch to coercive Borg government. Which, in the end, means punishment of any dissent and the death of free expression. Forget “resistance” of any sort without Hell to pay.
Here’s an excerpt from my piece, which I hope you’ll read in full:
Socialism and communism both involve ceding to the state control over the distribution of goods and services for the masses. This involves giving up individual rights, and giving the state a good measure of control over our personal lives. This road always leads to tyranny, no matter what you pave it with, and no matter what you name it.
Socialism requires a power clique—or, as Lenin put it, an elite “vanguard”—in order to pretend to function. This means going heavy on executive power and rubber-stamp light on the legislative. Socialism demands that we place blind trust in whoever takes the reins of power to distribute society’s goods and services. This tiny elite, by the way, typically enjoys enormous privileges and a much higher standard of living than the hoi polloi, simply by being a part of the elite “nomenklatura.”
Sure, this oligarchy claims to distribute in the name of “equality.” That’s typically the cover story. The historical fact is that the vanguard, the power clique, eventually takes control of everything that’s produced—medicine, education, housing, food, transportation, etc. Its members then bureaucratically ration out—as they see fit—the means of human survival. In the end, you’ve basically got an elite corps of mobsters with the power to decide which folks are more equal than others.