The Editors’ Quote of the Day:

“This has happened many times before, and is part of a predictable cycle. As I show in my new book Socialism: The Failed Idea That Never Dies, socialist projects always go through honeymoon periods, during which they are enthusiastically endorsed by Western intellectuals. But since socialist policies generally lead to economic failure, and sometimes even political repression, those honeymoon periods typically don’t last for more than a decade. Then these foreign example fall out of fashion, and get retroactively reclassified as counterfeit socialism. The USSR, North Vietnam, Cuba and Maoist China all functioned as utopias du jour. In the 1970s, some Western intellectuals even pinned their hopes on more obscure areas of the world, such as Cambodia, Albania, Tanzania, Mozambique, Angola and Nicaragua.

One common, backward-looking delusion in all of these cases: When explaining away the failures of the past, it was assumed that the hierarchical, stratified character of failed socialist projects had been a result of some deliberate political choice. Which is to say: It was believed that previous socialist experiments had failed because the leaders of these movements caused them to be centralized and autocratic as a matter of design—as opposed to a democratic socialist system based on mass participation and a radical decentralisation of power.

But the truth is that mass participation and radical democratization always had been idealized by socialists, including by socialist leaders who led successful national movements. But these dreams never survived, because it simply isn’t feasible to run a large society and a complex economy in this kind of participatory way. Democratic socialism works perfectly fine in small, self-selecting and homogenous high-trust communities with relatively simple economies, the prime example being the Israeli Kibbutz. But that model is not scalable (and hasn’t even aged particularly well in Israel itself). There is a reason that, even at the height of the Kibbutz movement, Kibbutzim never grew beyond a certain size. There seems to be an upper limit of around 1,500 people, and even that is rare: Most Kibbutzim have fewer than 500 members.

Regardless of what socialists say they want to build, socialism can only mean a society run by large, hierarchical government bureaucracies. It can only mean a command-and-control economy directed by a distant, technocratic elite. The reason it always turns out that way isn’t because revolutions are “betrayed” by selfish or undisciplined actors, but because no other path is possible. Unfortunately, this is a lesson that every generation needs to learn for itself—which is why each cohort is sneered at by its younger counterparts.” – Kristian Niemietz, in an essay titled Socialism’s Endless Refrain: This Time, Things Will Be Different, in the Quilette blog


  1. I always find the socialist vs. capitalism debate to be, well, touchy. I am certainly pro-capitalism, but much of what I am seeing from this quote is certainly politically biased.

    To be clear, “But since socialist policies generally lead to economic failure, and sometimes even political repression, those honeymoon periods typically don’t last for more than a decade.”

    Let us not forget the 2008 financial crisis that resulted in corporate socialism at the expense of the American tax payer. Let us also not forget the economic failure, and political repression that come with capitalism. In doing so, this process is and of its self a utopian vision that is not based in practical application.

    The emphasis of scale in this quote I do question is very important and a key part to economic struggles, regardless of what type of system the state and its people use to organize.

  2. When you know the circumstances, income, outgo and compassionate actions of the people around you, socialism is possible. When you get larger groups where other peoples’ input and outgo are not up for immediate scrutiny, it’s possible for leaders to arise who skim off extras without notice, rationalizing they “deserve” this due to some type of superiority.

    If we’re both at the dinner table I’ll see if you’re taking an extra serving before someone at the far end even gets a plate, or whether you refused to participate in preparation and just showed up for the meal. I’ll deal with the problem immediately. That doesn’t happen if you have a seat at the table, but the rest of the diners don’t know what you’ve been doing before you “take your share.”

    It takes tough, fair-minded compassion and accountability (like that of Judeo-Christian tradition and perhaps others outside my own experience) to insist that NOBODY is “more equal” than anybody else. Jesus had a standard of living most church officials would be horrified at. His idea of pulling rank and using His privilege was insisting we help each other out so everybody gets dinner.

    In my own experience, political and social leaders who espouse socialist agendas like equity over merit, housing project subsidies and strict gun control tend to have more lucrative jobs, better houses, and more guns. The rules are needed for the little people, not them. Without enough public and detailed scrutiny, socialism just allows scum to rise to the top.

Comments are closed.