“As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his foolishness” (Proverbs 26:11)
As if Bernie and AOC weren’t enough, the recent mayoral race ascent of Zohran Mamdani in New York City and Omar Fateh in Minneapolis brings democratic socialism to the forefront…again. Rather than focus on Mamdani or Fateh, I’ll briefly explore the philosophy of democratic socialism.
And yes, it leads back to our old friend, Karl Marx.
“Not Marxism, again!” you say? Acknowledged or not, Marx continues to cast a dark shadow over our culture. From “Black Lives Matter” (the spurious organization,[1] not the idea) and its “Defund the Police” arm, to the “Fighting Oligarchy” movement of Sanders and AOC, Marxist influence persists and gains disciples with promises of equality, human progress, care for others, fairness, and justice.
But like a botched plastic surgery procedure, the promise of improvement sounds great until one sees the results—ugly disfigurement. Democratic socialism is the inviting poster adorning the shop of horrors known as Marxism, a prostitute with AIDS beckoning a lonely client on the street.
I get the imaginary appeal of socialism and Marxism. A society without class privilege where everyone shares equally in the harvest, where collective concern for the greater good brings out the best in us, where the value of something is in the labor it takes to produce it rather than profit, where “self” is abandoned for the benefit of society. But like the hippie communes of the 1960s and 70s, these ideals are a mirage for a simple reason:
Selfish humans are involved.
It didn’t take much for hippie communes to dissolve. Someone keeps neglecting to pick up the trash or flush the toilet. Another decides to take more than their allotted share of food or decides they’re too tired that day to work the fields. Still others question the rules, the routine, and anyone who dares to lead. Suddenly running around naked with flowers in our hair singing Bob Dylan songs loses its romantic appeal, and one of two things happens: the dissolution of the commune, or an authoritarian figure takes control—enter totalitarianism.
To use a Star Trek analogy, Marxism is like the Borg—a collective of cybernetic organisms that seek “perfection” by assimilating other species and their technologies into their hive mind, known as the Collective. Still, there remains a Borg Queen who claims allegiance to and equality with the Collective but operates with complete authority—i.e., totalitarianism.
Some defend socialism and Marxism by stating it’s not the idea that’s wrong but the imperfect way in which the idea is animated in society, that we need to keep trying. However, this makes my point. In its intrinsic selfishness, humanity will NEVER create a utopia—not through socialism, Marxism, or even capitalism. At least capitalism exists because of, and therefore promotes, freedom, which cannot be said of socialism or Marxism.
So, are democratic socialists and those enamored with their ideology that naïve?
Have they not read their history books? Do they not understand Marxist theory and the role socialism plays? Have they not seen with their own eyes the failure of socialism and devastation of Marxism in other countries? Do they not see the hypocrisy of calling for the destruction of capitalism while enjoying the fruits of it? (And it’s not their hypocrisy that undermines the ideology,[2] for the ideology alone subverts itself!) Are they, as Santayana explained, merely repeating the past by neglecting it?
Or are they intentionally beckoning people to enter through a doorway emblazoned with “Rejecting Capitalism Will Make You Free!”—not unlike the gates of Auschwitz welcoming its victims with Arbeit macht frei—”Work Makes You Free”?
Yes, socialism’s inevitable march toward Marxism is as dangerous as fascism. Both promise freedom yet always deliver bondage and death. Adding “democratic” to the name is nothing more than lipstick on a pig, as democratic socialism stems from the core Marxist tenet that human society is binary, comprised of oppressors and oppressed (in Marxist language, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat). In this worldview, capitalism is the primary instrument of domination and destruction. From Marx and Engels’ Das Kapital:
“Within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil; they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labour process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut of capital.”[3]
Not much love for capitalism here, as, according to Marx, it “…mutilates the labourer into a fragment of a man.” Since such oppression is untenable, according to Marx and Engels, capitalism must be eliminated. Yet, oddly, they explain that capitalism is an important part of the trajectory to the ultimate goal: Communism. Here’s a synopsis of Marxist theory:
- Capitalism creates oppression, which is necessary to awaken and heed Marx and Engels’ call: “Proletarians of all countries, Unite!”[4]
- The oppressed revolt and demand sufficient control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange—a transitional period known as Socialism.
- Socialism sets the stage for the complete disintegration of private ownership and personal profit-making, and ultimately establishes a centralized, State-controlled society of equal-value comrades known as Communism.
And let’s not forget that along this path, according to Marx and Engels, the “State” would become the primary agent in shaping the beliefs of “individuals” through state-controlled education—known in Marxism as the “New Man”—all for the cause of erasing individualism in favor of the collective (enter the Borg!).
In harmony with this path, according to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) website, “Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society.”
Like decayed fruit from a rotten tree, this Marxian sentiment from the DSA is dangerously nonsensical.
First, capitalism was not “designed by the owning class.” Elements of capitalism go back as far as ancient Rome and even China, evolving over many centuries. Its modern iteration stemmed from mercantilism and the Industrial Revolution of the 16th – 18th centuries, in which a country’s financial interests were largely tied to imports and exports induced by a free market economy. This enabled an economy in which all could take part—far removed from the servile class system that ruled Europe for centuries.
Secondly, that capitalism itself “exploits the rest of us” is a non sequitur. Yes, as Adam Smith opined during its modern inception in the 18th century, capitalism “…is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” Money and greed are inherently intertwined, as are Marxism and subjugation. However, private ownership, a free market, and the accumulation of wealth have lifted more people from poverty than any other economic system on earth. In 2024, capitalism facilitated nearly $600 BILLION in charitable giving in the U.S. alone, not to mention the downstream effect of innovation and technology on the job market and personal income.
How are Cuba and North Korea doing on that front?
Moreover, capitalism is not a zero-sum game. Socialists and Marxists promote the false notion that wealth accumulated by one person takes wealth away from others, as though there were a finite pot of money. Unlike socialism and Marxism, which remove wealth (except for the elite—the Orwellian pigs-on-hind-legs), capitalism creates wealth, of which all can partake.
Lastly, capitalism does not preclude “…ordinary people [having] a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society.” Capitalism has coexisted with labor unions, democratic elections, protests, and social movements for centuries. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous, attested to by the millions who participate in, have a stake in, and prosper from capitalist ventures. There’s no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We can be capitalists and philanthropists.
Before you invoke the tired mantra, “What about Sweden, Norway, and Finland?”, there would be no such welfare systems without capitalism—as the Prime Minister of Denmark noted, in response to Bernie Sanders, in 2015:
“I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
To me, the real issue is the exploitation of people, period. We can all agree that treating others unjustly is wrong. Whether through Marxism or Fascism, which have amplified rather than resolved human subjugation, or the greed of capitalism, which, without restraints, can result in unfairness, at least capitalism offers the opportunity to overcome such subjugation through personal freedom to change one’s circumstances.
Encouraging generosity for our fellow humans is a fight worth fighting. But let’s leave the fakery of democratic socialism/Marxism in the dustbin of history.
[1] Mike Gonzalez’s book, BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution, duly chronicles the Marxist underpinnings of BLM and its founders, Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi. Having included BLM in my Worldview/Philosophy course, I concur with his findings.
[2] Pointing out someone’s hypocrisy in not following their asserted ideology, as a premise to reject that ideology, is known formally as a “tu quoque” logical fallacy—something I try to avoid in my arguments.
[3] Das Kapital, Volume 1, Chapter 29, p. 449
[4] Communist Manifesto, Chapter IV: “Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!” (Often translated, “Workers of the world, unite!)
Pondering 