Written by Lawrence Reed from the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE),
Editor’s note: Marianna Davidovich, head of external relations at FEE, recently released a booklet titled “The Buried Stories of Communism & Socialism.” The following essay by Lawrence W. Reed, FEE’s president emeritus, serves as the Afterword in the booklet.
Marianna Davidovich vividly recounts the world’s harrowing encounters with the malevolence of communism in this volume. The history is grim, with a hundred million victims and the loss of liberties for hundreds of millions more. It is no surprise, as even Karl Marx, the pioneer of modern communist ideology, endorsed extreme violence as a crucial element of the communist ideology.
The countries typically referred to as “communist”—such as Lenin and Stalin’s Soviet Union, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Mao’s China, Castro’s Cuba, and others mentioned by Marianna—would not be classified as such by Karl Marx himself. He believed that communism would be the culmination of history, characterized by the government “withering away” after a period of socialism and the harsh “dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Thus, the countries commonly labeled as communist are, according to both Marx and the governments themselves, socialist. None of them identified as communist; they all proudly embraced the socialist label. For instance, the full name of the former Soviet Union was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Marx’s prophecy that socialist dictatorships would ultimately transform into government-less, communist utopias was embraced by pseudo-intellectuals as a messianic prediction. But how could Marx foresee the fate of his nation, let alone others? Was he a fortune-teller? Did he rely on tarot cards, a crystal ball, or a Ouija board? Or did a divine entity (whom he didn’t believe in) endow him with prophetic powers beyond comprehension?
Of course, none of these scenarios apply. Marx was not a clairvoyant. He was a charlatan, a bitter and unpleasant writer with repugnant, racist, and anti-Semitic inclinations. He lived off others throughout his life. As British historian Paul Johnson detailed in his book, “Intellectuals,” Marx was cruel to his own family. He longed for the violence that he predicted socialist dictatorships would instigate. Almost no one attended his funeral.
Marx’s idea that under communism, the government would “wither away” was always an illogical non-starter. He never elucidated how or why this would occur. What would compel dictators with absolute power to relinquish it one day? This notion is more akin to a nonsensical fairy tale than a prophecy.
Having outlined the dreadful details of death and devastation in nations influenced by Marx’s teachings, the fundamental question that remains is WHY? Why does socialism inherently lead to mass chaos?
Hold on a minute, you might ask.
What about the peaceful “democratic socialism” in Scandinavia?
Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They lack minimum wage laws, have minimal interference with prices and market forces, lower business taxes, and offer more school choice than the United States. They have trade-oriented, globalized economies, with few to no nationalized industries.
The Danish Prime Minister recently stated, “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with a form of socialism. Therefore, I want to clarify. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” The Index of Economic Freedom ranks Denmark, Norway, and Sweden among the freest (most capitalist) nations globally.
While Scandinavian countries unintentionally evolved into generous welfare states after World War II, being solely a welfare state does not equate to textbook socialism. Moreover, these nations eventually moved away from that model—lowering taxes, reducing spending, and revitalizing private sector entrepreneurship. Margaret Thatcher implemented similar reforms in Britain when the country’s welfare state transformed it into “the sick man of Europe” by the late 1970s.
When countries adopt a mix of socialism and capitalism—a concept once dubbed “the middle way”—socialists often claim credit for any progress, genuine or perceived. However, such scenarios frequently reveal that the progress achieved is not due to socialism but rather the capitalism that remains unscathed. Capitalism generates wealth (as even Marx acknowledged), while socialism merely seizes and redistributes it.
Returning to the core question: Why does socialism inherently lead to mass chaos?
One significant reason is its concentration and centralization of power, the most poisonous motivation in human history. The urge to dominate and control, dictate others’ lives, intimidate and seize their possessions, monopolize various sectors of society—all these components of a “power trip” are integral to the socialist vision.
But you might argue that socialism pledges to assist the poor and disadvantaged! Indeed, it makes such promises. How far would it get if its proponents were truthful? Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, and others all professed “solidarity with the people,” particularly the poor. They never candidly declared, “Grant us power, and we will crush dissent and sacrifice you for opposing our schemes!”
Socialism is widely recognized as fundamentally opposed to capitalism. It cannot be defined as acts of compassion, altruism, generosity, and concern for the less fortunate. There is evidently more compassion, generosity, and care for the disadvantaged under capitalism!
Even in terms of foreign aid, capitalist nations are the donors while socialist nations are the beneficiaries. You cannot share or give away what you have not created in the first place, and socialism offers no principles of wealth creation—only wealth confiscation and consumption.
Note that socialists do not advocate achieving their goals through mutual agreement. They do not propose raising funds for their plans through bake sales or charitable appeals. Your involvement is not voluntary. From inception to execution, the defining feature of socialism is not the enticing promises but the means by which it enforces its agenda—FORCE. If it is not voluntary, it is not socialism. It is that straightforward.
In theory, practice, and outcome, socialism is profoundly anti-social. Here is why:
-
The plans of socialists take precedence over yours. Why? Simply because they say so. Isn’t that reason enough? “The more the State plans,” as Austrian economist F. A. Hayek stated, “the more challenging planning becomes for the individual.” However, socialists disregard this because their vision is undoubtedly more noble than any thoughts we mere peasants might have. Socialism fundamentally opposes individualism as it seeks to blend people into a colossal, collectivist entity.
-
Socialists are simultaneously know-it-alls and know-nothings. This is a remarkable feat, perhaps socialism’s unique contribution to sociology. Even if a socialist’s personal life is chaotic, they still believe they can manage everyone else’s. Even if they doubt the existence of a higher power, they think the State can fill that role. F. A. Hayek hit the nail on the head when he wrote, “The curious task of economics is to persuade men of how little they know about what they imagine they can design.”
-
Socialism rejects biological science. No climate change denier disputes the existence of climate. However, socialists insist that if human nature exists, they can eradicate and reinvent it. Humans are unique individuals, with no two being identical in every aspect, yet socialists believe they can standardize and communalize us into compliant entities. They have no qualms about penalizing individual success and accomplishments, even if the result is universal impoverishment. They contend that individuals will work harder and smarter for the State than for themselves or their families. This is closer to sorcery than science.
-
Socialists resort to law enforcement for everything. Have you noticed that the socialist agenda is not a list of helpful suggestions or lifestyle tips? When in power, you do not have the option to decline. Freedom of choice? Not a chance! Socialist ideas are deemed so superior that they must be obligatory, and dissenting opinions must be silenced. Deep within every socialist, including the well-intentioned but naïve ones, a totalitarian entity is striving to break free. This is precisely what socialists routinely do with unwavering consistency.
-
Socialism is more than anti-capitalism. It is anti-capital. In his compelling book, “Intellectuals,” British historian Paul Johnson highlighted Karl Marx’s disdain for private property accumulation. Johnson cites Marx’s mother, who famously wished her son would accumulate capital instead of merely writing about it. Mrs. Marx was on to something. Karl and his followers, to varying degrees, wage war against the primary source of material wealth that enhances people’s lives—namely, private property and its accumulation by private, profit-seeking individuals who invest, create, and employ. Wherever such lunacy gains ground, it propels society backward toward primitive times.
-
Conflict is their religion. From Marx to contemporary socialists, conflict is the essence of their ideology. If it is absent, they will fabricate it. After all, everyone is either a victim or a villain, an oppressor or one of the oppressed. Conflict dictates the course of history, they assert. And like fortune-tellers and tarot card readers, they proclaim the future to be in their favor. This perpetual state of anger precludes any sense of gratitude, particularly toward capitalists. Socialists do not rally outside businesses of any scale with signs expressing gratitude for taking risks, producing goods, and employing individuals.
Ludwig von Mises, one of the greatest economists in history, encapsulated this sentiment eloquently:
“A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings.”
Communism, as envisioned by its intellectual progenitor Karl Marx, is an unattainable and undesirable fantasy. In reality, attempts to fulfill Marx’s delusions result in full-fledged, unadulterated socialism. And that is the cyanide that both Mises and Marianna caution us about.
Loading…