By Zaldy Dandan – Variety Editor
“There is a potential for tyranny if the enterprise of politics is interpreted as being analogous to that of science.” — James M. Buchanan
PERHAPS one of these days, socialists might have a Robert Kardashian moment — as dramatized in “The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story” — when Kardashian questioned why no suspects other than his friend O.J. had emerged despite intense media scrutiny and a police investigation into the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
I’m referring to the familiar explanation offered by socialists when confronted with the uniformly disastrous results of socialism as practiced by socialist nations: that true socialism hasn’t been tried.
So what kind of socio-economic system is it that cannot be tried anywhere by any of its true believers, even when they wield absolute power and never hesitate to use it?
Ah, our socialist friends would say, what about Norway and the other Scandinavian nations? Yet those are not socialist countries. They operate mixed-market capitalist economies marked by predominant private ownership, free trade, and competitive markets, financing generous welfare states through high taxation — not through the abolition of private property or central planning, the defining features of socialism.
Many self-styled socialists are, in fact, social democrats. But they can’t seem to shake their fondness for the word socialism. Some even call themselves “democratic socialists,” which is rather like calling oneself a “compassionate Satanist.” Socialism — the real deal — is anti-democratic. It is a totalitarian ideology enforced by its true believers as if it were “settled science.” Marx himself called his doctrine “Scientific Socialism.”
As the constitution of one socialist nation once proclaimed, the goal was to create a “national society informed by genuine happiness, equality, justice, and democracy without rich or poor and without exploiters or exploited, a society in which all live harmoniously in great national solidarity….” Every citizen “enjoys full rights to a constantly improving material, spiritual, and cultural life… [and] is guaranteed a living. All workers are the masters of their factories. All peasants are the masters of the rice paddies and fields. All other laborers have the right to work. There is absolutely no unemployment.”
Which country was this? Democratic Kampuchea — Cambodia — under the Khmer Rouge. For a reminder of how that socialist experiment turned out, see “The Killing Fields.”
The events of 1989-1990 should have demonstrated conclusively that socialism is economically unsound and intellectually bankrupt. For a time, they did. But eventually socialism became attractive again, especially during periods of economic crisis or uncertainty, when more people become receptive to rhetoric about social justice, fairness, and human fulfillment over profit-driven individualism, exploitation, and inequality. Many of us seem to prefer noble intentions to actual results.
The premise of socialism is certainty, and it presupposes — if not demands — our consent, which socialist leaders believe to be permanent. But we remain individuals, with our own ideas, beliefs, and yes, biases — and these change over time. Unanimity of opinion is for the ants.
Consider North Korea. Its hapless people have been brainwashed by their socialist rulers since 1948. But imagine what would happen if Kim Jong Un suddenly allowed them to travel freely abroad. The result would almost certainly be a mass stampede.
“Why do [leftists] not see that the future they are promoting has already failed elsewhere?” former Marxist David Horowitz once asked rhetorically. “First,” he said, “because they see history as something to transcend, not as a reservoir of experience from which they must learn. Second, because in their eyes the future is an idea that has not yet been tried. If socialism failed… it’s because they weren’t the ones implementing it, and the conditions weren’t right to make it work.”
As National Review’s Charles Cooke put it, “We do not, pace Thomas Paine, ‘have it in our power to begin the world over again,’ and we never will — however many zeroes the Treasury is instructed to scrawl on its checks. Accidents happen. Humans err. Evil prevails. Perfection is a pipe dream. The question before us is: How do we deal with this reality? On the left, the usual answer is to deny that such a reality exists. The [leftist] mind finds comfort in the conviction that, if only we adjust our spreadsheets correctly — and elect the right people — we can plan, spend, and cajole our way into a heaven on earth. It is willing to say anything — yes, anything — to avoid the conclusion that the world can be cruel and unfair, and that there is often little we can do about it.”
For many, believing in a better future is easier — and more comforting — precisely because it demands nothing. As Jean-François Revel observed, it carries “not the slightest obligation to produce results; its sole function is to allow its devotees to condemn what exists in the name of what does not.”
Send feedback to editor@mvariety.com
Zaldy Dandan is the recipient of the NMI Society of Professional Journalists’ Best in Editorial Writing Award and the NMI Humanities Award for Outstanding Contributions to Journalism. His four books are available on amazon.com/.
