A few months ago I started a thread about capitalism and democracy, and in that thread I quoted this excerpt from an essay by one of the key leaders of the progressive movement, Woodrow Wilson:
While it may sound plausible, it's completely wrong. How do we know? The historical record speaks for itself. Dozens of socialist states have existed over the past century - the USSR, Cuba, East Germany, Venezuela, North Korea, etc, and not one has maintained free and fair elections. Why? Because they can’t. Socialist regimes concentrate economic and political power in the hands of the state, and once that power is centralized, the first priority becomes self-preservation, not democratic accountability.
In fact, if genuinely free elections were held, socialist politicians know they’d be voted out asap. People don’t want ration lines, economic stagnation, and political repression, especially not today, when the failures of socialism have been so thoroughly documented. Whether it’s the bread shortages in the Soviet Union, the collapse of healthcare in Cuba, or the hyperinflation of Venezuela, the track record is crystal clear: life under socialism is miserable and often deadly.
This is why the idea of "democratic socialism" is inherently contradictory. You cannot have both state control over the economy and a free society, because the former inevitably destroys the latter. Socialism requires coercion to control prices, property, production, and ultimately, people. And you can’t vote your way out of that shit once it takes root.
So while “democratic socialism” may sound like a friendly compromise, in practice it's a bait-and-switch offering democracy up front, but discarding it the moment the state takes over.
Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals.
While it may sound plausible, it's completely wrong. How do we know? The historical record speaks for itself. Dozens of socialist states have existed over the past century - the USSR, Cuba, East Germany, Venezuela, North Korea, etc, and not one has maintained free and fair elections. Why? Because they can’t. Socialist regimes concentrate economic and political power in the hands of the state, and once that power is centralized, the first priority becomes self-preservation, not democratic accountability.
In fact, if genuinely free elections were held, socialist politicians know they’d be voted out asap. People don’t want ration lines, economic stagnation, and political repression, especially not today, when the failures of socialism have been so thoroughly documented. Whether it’s the bread shortages in the Soviet Union, the collapse of healthcare in Cuba, or the hyperinflation of Venezuela, the track record is crystal clear: life under socialism is miserable and often deadly.
This is why the idea of "democratic socialism" is inherently contradictory. You cannot have both state control over the economy and a free society, because the former inevitably destroys the latter. Socialism requires coercion to control prices, property, production, and ultimately, people. And you can’t vote your way out of that shit once it takes root.
So while “democratic socialism” may sound like a friendly compromise, in practice it's a bait-and-switch offering democracy up front, but discarding it the moment the state takes over.
