Tag: socialism

Socialism Fails: Why the Danish Model Won’t Work in the U.S.

Denmark is regularly held up in U.S. political debate as proof that socialism works, with the country’s high taxes, universal healthcare, and generous benefits cited as a model the United States could adopt if it were only willing to embrace socialism the way Denmark has. The comparison usually comes with a pointed question: if socialism produces this standard of living in Denmark, why can’t the United States do the same?

The record of countries that have actually implemented socialism answers that question on its own. China, Cuba, Laos, North Korea, and Venezuela have all organized their economies around state or Communist Party control of production. All five rank among the world’s most repressed economies and least free societies. Denmark’s nominal GDP per capita is high at $77,046, but it still trails the United States’ $89,991. The other five countries badly trail both: China sits at $13,968, Venezuela at $3,736, Laos at $2,288, and North Korea at just $640.

Cuba’s official GDP per capita is reported at more than $7,000 per year. That figure is calculated using the government’s official exchange rates, which bear little resemblance to the rate used in everyday transactions. At market exchange rates, the average state worker earns only about $15 to $25 per month.

On political rights and civil liberties, Freedom House’s 2026 report rates China at 9 out of 100 and North Korea at 3, both among the world’s least free states. Cuba, Laos, and Venezuela are all rated “Not Free” as well. Socialism, in its actual historical applications, has consistently produced restricted freedom and a low standard of living for the citizens living under it.

Denmark is frequently described as a socialist success story, but the label does not match how the Danish economy actually functions. Socialism, in its standard economic definition, means state or collective ownership of the means of production, with government directing investment, pricing, and output. Denmark does not operate this way. It is a capitalist market economy with private ownership of firms, competitive markets, and free trade. It carries a large tax-funded welfare and transfer system layered on top. That is the same market foundation the United States has, just carrying a much heavier tax load.

According to the OECD’s Revenue Statistics 2025, Denmark’s tax-to-GDP ratio reached 45.2% in 2024, the highest in the OECD for the second consecutive year, up from 44.0% in 2023. By comparison, the OECD average was 34.1% in 2024, and the United States collected roughly 25.6% of GDP in tax revenue, near the bottom of the OECD. That revenue funds redistribution and social insurance, not state-run enterprise.

Denmark’s private sector remains dominant, and government involvement is concentrated in financing benefits rather than owning production. The result is a market economy with a Gini coefficient of 28.6, among the lowest measures of income inequality globally, and a poverty rate of about 4% as of 2021.

Keep reading

All Socialists are Ignorant… But Some are More Ignorant Than Others

n The Law, published in 1850, Frédéric Bastiat made a case against “legal plunder,” the perversion of the law to violate liberty and property rights. Nearly 100 years later in The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek warned that socialists, whatever their intentions, lacked the knowledge to command the economy.

Hayek also explained how the worst always get on top in socialist regimes, and after the German National Socialists’ Anschluss in 1938, he did not return to his native Austria. In 1983, President Reagan brought Hayek to the White House, and in 1991 President George H.W. Bush awarded Hayek the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Nobel laureate Milton Friedman authored Capitalism and Freedom and became a national figure with the “Free to Choose” series on PBS. Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell also upheld the virtues of the market over government command of the economy. Those now proudly calling themselves “democratic socialists” seem unaware of these authors and show little if any inclination to engage in debate.

The surging socialists are even more unaware of works that show socialism as it actually existed under its most enthusiastic promoters. Consider, for example, the experience of Malcolm Muggeridge. His magisterial Chronicles of Wasted Time (1972) devotes a chapter to “A Socialist Upbringing.” The Muggeridge household jostled with politicians, scholars, and clergy dedicated to the cause, along with Labor Party stalwarts such as Ramsey MacDonald and Fabian socialists Sidney and Beatrice Webb. Their collective efforts aimed to benefit “the workers,” who were never present at any of their events.

“A worker is someone for whom everything is done as long as he keeps off stage,” Muggeridge noted, and “the whole notion of a working class with a specific political or cultural, or even spiritual role qua working class is a fantasy invented by guilt-stricken renegade proletarians like D.H. Lawrence, or by renegade bourgeoisie on the run like William Morris or, for that matter, Marx and Engels themselves, or just by a sociologist looking for a subject and a job.”

After stints teaching in India and Egypt, Muggeridge wound up in the first “workers’ state,” the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), as the Moscow correspondent of the Manchester Guardian. Correspondents ran contests to see who could pass off the most fatuous story to the regime’s foreign admirers. Muggeridge convinced Lord Marley that the long lines for everything were intended to give zealous workers a chance to rest. When a British lawyer asked if the Soviets practiced habeas corpus, A.T. Cholerton of the Daily Telegraph told him they strictly adhered to habeas cadaver.

Stalin’s collectivization of agriculture claimed more than a million victims in Ukraine, but Walter Duranty of the New York Times contended that there was no forced famine there. Muggeridge decided to see for himself. “This particular famine was planned and deliberate, not due to any natural catastrophe like failure of rain, or cyclone, or flooding,” he wrote. “There is not only a famine but a state of war, a military occupation… Peasants with their hands tied behind their back being loaded into cattle-trucks at gunpoint.” After breaking this story, Muggeridge was widely vilified while Duranty’s mendacious reports won a Pulitzer Prize.

In August, 1939, Stalin signed a pact with Hitler’s Germany. “I had been expecting such a development,” Muggeridge wrote, “never losing an opportunity to say that Bolshevism and National Socialism were the same thing, except that one was a Slav version and the other Teutonic.” Margarete Buber-Neumann described that reality in Under Two Dictators: Prisoner of Stalin and Hitler.

Keep reading

Lenin’s New Economic Policy: When the Soviets Admitted Socialism Doesn’t Work

A century ago, the Mother Ship of Socialism—the Soviet Union—was teetering on the precipice. The Poles had just vanquished the hopes of dictator Vladimir Lenin to sweep across Europe. Under the bludgeon of Marxist central planning, the economy had collapsed to a fraction of its pre-war dimensions. The country was seething in discontent. Insurrection seemed imminent. Indeed, the month of March 1921 had begun with hungry Soviet soldiers and sailors mounting the Kronstadt Rebellion against the Bolshevik regime.

What was Lenin’s remedy for his unfolding socialist catastrophe? It wasn’t more socialism, at least for the moment. That would be like chasing a glass of tainted water with a gallon of Clorox. Desperate to reverse the consequences of socialism, Lenin turned to their only known antidote—capitalism.

Sunday marked the 100th anniversary of the start of Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP). In a stunning about-face on March 21, 1921, the NEP began undoing the previous four years. Expropriation of businesses and the nationalization of industries stopped. Lenin proclaimed a partial restoration of, in his own words, “a free market and capitalism.” Even state-owned firms would seek to operate on a “profit” basis. Individuals could own small enterprises again. Market prices would be permitted in place of state directives.

A little bit of freedom goes a long way. In this instance, it turned the economy around and saved the infant Bolshevik tyranny. But it did not last long. Three years later, Lenin would be dead. Before the end of the decade, Stalin obliterated the NEP with a massive collectivist campaign to re-socialize the economy. Of the NEP, former US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in his 1989 book, The Grand Failure, “For many Russians, even more than sixty years later, these were the best years of the era ushered in by the revolution of 1917.”

On that March day in 1921, the very day winter bowed to spring, the socialists in Moscow effectively admitted they had to stop stealing. There just was not much left to steal. In a 1990 article, economist Peter Boettke cited a litany of mea culpas from leading Soviet intellectuals, including a most revealing tribute to free market economist Ludwig von Mises from socialist architect Nikolai Bukharin. He grudgingly admitted that Mises’s devastating critique of socialism made him “one of the most learned critics.”

Keep reading

Price Fixing at the Pump

Conservatives often criticize Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Zohran Mamdani for believing that government should direct private economic decisions. Yet when President Donald Trump recently warned gasoline retailers to lower their prices, or face “big problems,” he embraced a remarkably similar premise: that politicians should pressure private businesses to charge prices that the government considers acceptable.

According to a recent Fox News report, President Trump demanded that gasoline retailers immediately lower their prices, renewing his call for $2.50 gasoline. On Truth Social, he urged retailers to “DROP YOUR PRICE FOR OUR GREAT AMERICAN PEOPLE!” and warned that if they failed to do so, “big problems lie ahead.”

That matters because when politicians discuss gasoline prices, many Americans picture giant oil companies. In reality, roughly 95% of US gas stations are independently owned small businesses. Most do not buy gasoline directly from refiners. Instead, they purchase fuel through wholesale distributors, or “jobbers,” who deliver it to local stations. It’s these independent owners, not major oil companies, who set retail prices, based on local competition, taxes, operating costs, and, perhaps most importantly, the cost of replacing the fuel once their underground tanks are empty. Because gasoline profit margins are razor-thin, many stations rely more on convenience-store sales than on gasoline sales to remain profitable.

None of this means that government policy is irrelevant. President Trump is correct to criticize California’s role in high gasoline prices, for instance. California consistently has some of the highest gasoline prices in the nation, often $1.50 to $2.00 per gallon above the national average. Those higher prices reflect, in part, the state’s nation-leading gasoline excise tax (which climbed to 63.4¢ per gallon), state sales taxes, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, cap-and-trade programs, and unique fuel formulation requirements. All of these state-mandated policies increase the baseline expense of supplying gasoline.

Many economic conservatives and libertarians, myself included, have criticized Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, and Mamdani for advocating a larger government role in directing private economic decisions. At the very least, their calls for greater government intervention are consistent with the philosophy they have long espoused. The same standard should apply when a Republican president threatens private businesses over the prices they voluntarily charge. Free-market principles should not depend on which political party holds political power.

The real question is simple: Is it the legitimate role of government to pressure or threaten private businesses over the prices they voluntarily charge for their own property?

Keep reading

ENDLESS SOCIALIST SCANDALS: Spanish PM Pedro Sánchez’s Brother David Convicted of Nepotism and Administrative Misconduct, Banned From Public Service for 9 years

Another charge of influence peddling was dismissed, so no prison term was imposed.

While Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez goes around the world posing as a statesman in NATO and EU forums, back home, his party, his inner circle, and even his family are endlessly plagued with corruption scandals and investigations.

Less than a month ago, reports arose about Sánchez’s wife’s grift prosecution: Spanish PM Sánchez’s Wife, Begoña Gomez, Can’t Leave the Country While Standing Trial for Corruption

And today (14), David ‌Sánchez, Pedro’s brother, was convicted of nepotism and administrative misconduct and banned from holding public office for nine years.

Reuters reported:

“The ruling deals a fresh political blow to the Socialist premier, whose government and ​inner circle have faced corruption investigations and scandals over the past two years. Last ⁠month, a former close aide to Sánchez was sentenced to 24 years in prison in a ​separate corruption case.

David Sánchez was accused of benefiting from an appointment tailored to him because of ​his family connection to the prime minister, who when the job was awarded had just been elected leader of the Socialists when they were still in opposition. The prime minister has dismissed the case as part of a politically ​motivated campaign driven by the far right.”

The Badajoz court found that the position was created without administrative need, serving only the PM’s brother’s personal interests.

“The defendants ‌engaged ⁠in a grossly arbitrary exercise of power with the sole aim of favoring specific individuals,” the ruling said, adding that one of the posts was later modified to accommodate David Sánchez’s interest in opera.

The court dismissed the charge of influence peddling, which could have carried a prison sentence. Right-wing pressure ​groups had sought prison ​time for Sánchez, while ⁠prosecutors requested the case be dismissed.”

Keep reading

The Reason Socialism Appeals to the Youth

The establishment continues to dismiss the growing support for socialism among young people as nothing more than college indoctrination. That is only part of the story. If we refuse to understand why an entire generation is losing faith in capitalism, then we are destined to repeat the very mistakes that gave rise to socialism throughout history. The Fox News analysis citing Heartland Institute and Rasmussen polling noted that 53% of Americans aged 18 to 39 said they would support a Democratic Socialist for president, while 76% favored nationalizing industries such as health care, energy, and big tech. The overwhelming motivation is not ideology, it is economic despair.

Young Americans have entered adulthood during one of the most distorted economic periods in modern history. Housing has become unattainable for millions. According to the same polling, 74% of young voters believe America is facing a housing crisis, 62% say the economy is unfair to young people, and 36% describe themselves as struggling financially or in outright crisis. When asked why they supported democratic socialism, the most common answer was simple: housing costs. This is precisely what governments never want to admit. People do not abandon free markets because they suddenly become Marxists. They lose faith when the system no longer appears to reward hard work or provide a realistic path toward owning a home, raising a family, or building wealth.

This is hardly unique to the United States. Across Europe, Canada, Australia, and much of the developed world, younger generations face soaring rents, stagnant real wages after inflation, enormous student debt, and some of the weakest housing affordability on record. Many graduates cannot find careers matching their education, while others remain trapped in temporary work or are forced to live with their parents well into adulthood. Governments spent decades inflating asset prices through endless debt expansion and artificially low interest rates. Those who already owned homes and financial assets became wealthier, while those entering the workforce found themselves permanently priced out. That is not capitalism functioning properly. It is the direct consequence of governments manipulating markets and accumulating unsustainable debt.

Keep reading

Socialist Congressional Candidate Melat Kiros: We Can’t Tackle White Supremacy Without Reparations

America cannot tackle “white supremacy” without “reparations,” socialist congressional candidate Melat Kiros said during a recent discussion.

Kiros, who unseated 15-term Democrat Rep. Diana DeGette in Colorado’s First Congressional District primary, spoke with Walter Rhein and explained that she believes there is a racism that exists as a “product of growing up in a white supremacist society.”

“One of the things that brought me into starting my PhD program was finally coming to the realization that we were never really going to be able to tackle white supremacy in the way that we need to without reparations,” she said, asserting there is “no way to truly heal” and progress without that.

She said she researched wealth inequality data by race and found that “the gap between poor white people and rich white people and the gap between poor black people and rich black people is actually identical, and the gap between black people, white people in general, can actually be reasonably explained by the failure of the Reconstruction Era and our inability to actually repair the harm that was done.”

From there, she claimed, the “harms just continued to compound on one another, leading to a lot of the wealth inequality that we’re seeing today.”

Americans must understand “where” the harm is, she continued, and they must be able to “quantify racism.” She also believes there must be a new word for “white supremacy.”

“I almost think there needs to be a new word, because there’s racism that is coming from, you know, places of hatred and, you know, true bigotry, and then there’s racism that is just a product of growing up in a white supremacist society,” she said, declaring that America is “objectively a white supremacist society.”

“And I think there are a lot of people that engage in these kind of racist stereotypes without the intention of doing so, and so I think there has to be a little bit of separation in order for people to not be so afraid of being tacked on with this idea of racism, acknowledging that it exists within every single group,” she said, essentially calling on Americans to admit they are racist, even if they are not.

“You know, there’s anti-blackness within the black community as well, and you know, being able to understand all of these things, I think, is going to be the first step that’s necessary before we’re able to actually meaningfully fight for reparations, but I do not think we can’t get any kind of meaningful change without reparations,” she said, later emphasizing, “If we want to really address white supremacy in this country, we have to talk about reparations.”

Keep reading

Venezuelan Earthquake Rescuer Who Criticized Socialists on Camera Disappears

Locals in La Guaira, the most devastated state of Venezuela following last week’s twin earthquakes, denounced on Thursday that a man known as “El Topo de la Guaira,” identified as Wilmer Antonio Cruz, disappeared on Wednesday night after repeatedly condemning the socialist regime for failing to help those trapped in rubble.

Cruz had been working for days as a volunteer at the collapsed building he is believed to have lived in before the earthquakes, which international media identified as OPPPE 26 in Caraballeda, a massive complex featuring 876 apartments before it fell apart. Video interviews with the man recorded prior to his disappearance this week show him shirtless, using a bucket and a hammer to dig through a massive pile of debris looking for trapped neighbors.

Two earthquakes, registering magnitudes 7.2 and 7.5, struck Venezuela on the night of June 24, devastating La Guaira and parts of Caracas, the national capital. Venezuela was already suffering from the near-total lack of a competent healthcare system, extreme poverty, and a dearth of emergency services as a result of over two decades of socialist rule, leaving it poorly equipped to address the disaster. The American space agency NASA estimated this week, using satellite images, that the earthquakes damaged or destroyed as many as 60,000 buildings as the socialist regime had built massive public housing complexes without following appropriate earthquake protocols.

As of Friday, the Venezuelan government has documented 2,595 deaths as a result of the earthquakes and claims to have rescued 6,462 people. The United Nations and opposition groups estimate that over 50,000 people are missing, their chance of making it out of the rubble alive dwindling rapidly.

Locals in Caraballeda began denouncing that unidentified regime agents abducted Cruz on Wednesday night. Human rights activist Tamara Suju, sharing videos from eyewitnesses who said they saw Cruz’s detention, shared that the witnesses claimed Cruz intervened to defend a friend who was trying to use construction machinery to break through debris and rescue people, but was stopped by socialist agents.

Keep reading

What England Can Teach Us About ‘Democratic Socialism’

If you want to see modern-day socialism in action, look no further than to the other side of the pond at not-so-jolly old England. The story of Britain’s decline is a warning signal to those here in the States who are thrilled by the warm embrace of socialism.

Right now, the Brits are having the same debate about the merits of socialism as we are in our major cities and blue states. In England, the Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the Labour Party is out. But instead of turning to the right, it appears the UK will swerve further to the collective ownership of the left. Andy Burnham—the former socialist mayor of Manchester—is next in line. God save the queen.

As Greg Ip of The Wall Street Journal reports, “Burnham’s socialism is the real deal. He wants the state to control more of the means of production. … (H)e advocates public ownership of water, housing, energy and transportation.”

Burnham calls it “business-friendly socialism.”

Sure.

That will make the trains run on time.

What short memories.

After World War II, the Brits experimented with creeping socialism for more than three decades. The Labour Party handed over to public bureaucrats and unions the means of production: the Bank of England, the coal mines, the airlines, iron, steel, and phone service, to name a few. Prices soared, nothing worked, unemployment lines lengthened, and the Brits got a lot poorer.

Britain’s share of world output fell by half, from more than 10 percent to less than 5 percent. About the only thing Britain had going for it was four lads from Liverpool called the Beatles, who singlehandedly brought deep pride back and caused a mini-stimulus. But in the 1970s, the downturn worsened.

We interrupt this story with the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979. She saved the kingdom by slashing taxes and privatizing everything she could get her hands on. It was the precursor to Reaganomics.

That didn’t last long. Now it’s Thatcherism in reverse—just as the left in America wants to reverse the Reagan and Trump legacies of deregulation, lower taxes, and sound money.

What seems to be driving this leap toward “democratic socialism” on both sides of the Atlantic is a middle-class fury over inflation. The idea of free food, housing, child care, and health care is alluring.

But prices have risen not because of a failure of capitalism. It was mostly caused by massive money printing, widespread shutdowns of private industry, retail businesses and schools, and stay-at-home orders during COVID-19. Government became the provider, and the leap forward in state expenditures was never entirely extinguished.

In both the United States and in England, the “affordability crisis” is mostly in government-owned, government-operated, or heavily regulated businesses. In the U.S., that’s health care, education, and college tuition. In Britain, it’s those industries plus energy, housing, and child care.

Keep reading

What History Teaches Us About Why So Many Eventually Flee Socialism

History is filled with political movements born from noble promises. Few have been more appealing in theory than socialism. At its heart, socialism promises greater equality, economic fairness, and protection for those who struggle in a competitive marketplace. It speaks to the desire for justice and the belief that no person should be left behind.

Yet history also teaches a sobering lesson: While millions have voted for socialism, millions more have ultimately fled from it.

Why?

The answer is not found in campaign slogans or academic theories. It is found in the lived experiences of ordinary people across generations and continents.

Throughout the 20th century, socialist governments emerged across Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Many came to power promising to eliminate poverty, reduce inequality, and place the needs of the people above the interests of the wealthy. In the beginning, those promises often generated enormous enthusiasm. Citizens were told that government planning would be more efficient than free markets, that collective ownership would create fairness, and that centralized control would produce prosperity for all.

The results, however, frequently fell short of the promises.

One recurring problem was the concentration of power. When governments assume responsibility for directing large portions of the economy, political leaders inevitably gain greater control over employment, investment, production, and distribution. Over time, this concentration of authority often extends beyond economics into other aspects of society.

History shows that when governments acquire greater power, citizens frequently lose a measure of independence. Economic freedom and political freedom are often more closely connected than many realize. When a person’s livelihood depends heavily upon the state, dissent becomes more difficult and individual choice becomes more limited.

Another lesson history teaches is that incentives matter.

Human beings respond to rewards, risks, and opportunities. Free-market systems are far from perfect, but they have consistently demonstrated a remarkable ability to encourage innovation, entrepreneurship, and productivity. When individuals are allowed to benefit from their hard work, creativity, and investment, economies tend to grow.

By contrast, heavily centralized systems often struggle to generate the same level of innovation and efficiency. Bureaucracies can become slow, inflexible, and disconnected from local realities. Over time, shortages, inefficiencies, and declining productivity have plagued many state-controlled economies.

This does not mean capitalism is without flaws. It clearly is not. Free markets can produce inequality, abuse, and economic dislocation. They require regulation, accountability, and moral responsibility. But history suggests that replacing markets with extensive government control often creates a different set of problems—problems that can be even more difficult to solve.

Keep reading