Socialism Kills the American Dream Young Americans have come to see socialism as a scheme to redistribute wealth more equitably, taxing the rich at higher levels to pay for services like universal health care. Conveniently left out is the most dangerous part of the ideology: state control of the means of production—or as I see it, turning all enterprise into the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Neither is known for its customer service or standards of excellence, but put that aside, along with Google and Big Pharma and the losses in efficiency and innovation that nationalization would cause. That’s not even the most corrosive part of the scheme. Think instead about the small-business owners you know, like the old man minding the local bookstore, the immigrant running the café, the family that for generations has owned the nearby factory, which managed to survive globalization and a hundred other threats to its survival. Why must the state—if you insist, “the people”—seize ownership? Why must we all have our hands on what they built to deny them their hard-earned profits? Socialism costs us not only efficiency, but also the spirit of creation in a free society. —Avery Rogers, Stanford University economics student
The Planner and the Pawn How many times have you heard it said that socialism is great in principle but would never work in practice? That’s far too kind. Impossible in practice, socialism in theory is repressive and reprehensible. To achieve equity, its cardinal virtue, socialist regimes seize productive property and allocate resources through a command structure rather than the market. Price signals are suppressed and the individual desires they represent are subordinated to the larger central plan. Human beings are reduced to pieces on the government planner’s chessboard, their talents and aspirations restricted for the “greater good.” But who defines that? The planners at the top, of course. —Erik Halvorson, Hillsdale College, economics student
There are 101 new House members in the 116th Congress. Approximately 99 percent of these fresh-faced lawmakers do not identify as socialists. Thirty of the newly elected Democrats have joined their party’s pro-business caucus — which now boasts roughly as many members as its “progressive” one. For all the chatter about a “tea party of the left,” the Democratic center held in 2018: With a handful of exceptions, Establishment-backed incumbents triumphed in their primaries, while swing-district moderates prevailed in November. But the corporate media doesn’t want to talk about that. In its single-minded quest to maximize shareholder value, the for-profit Fourth Estate has been suppressing centrist ideas in favor of socialist ones. The bourgeois press hasn’t run a word on House freshman Ben McAdams’s “all of the above” energy policy — even as it’s published near-daily features on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal.” The major networks have ignored Jeff Van Drew’s thoughts on improving the Obamacare exchanges, even as they’ve given Ocasio-Cortez a prime-time platform to call for nationalizing the health-insurance industry. Major newspapers have buried the New Democrat Coalition’s plans for real corporate tax reform, while devoting multiple columns to the socialist congresswoman’s extemporaneous reflections on soaking the rich. These editorial choices haven’t merely exaggerated the left’s influence within the Democratic Party – they’ve actively increased it. Ocasio-Cortez has translated her disproportionate media coverage into disproportionate power, extracting coveted committee appointments from the House leadership, and policy commitments from her party’s 2020 hopefuls. Which is to say: The corporate media has been manufacturing dissent. The Intelligencer