Democratic Socialism — philosophy of poverty

The road from imperfect capitalism to socialist idealism is soaked with the blood of those who failed to appreciate the fairness of economic equality. Yet the socialist believers will not relinquish ideas that have been disproved repeatedly by historical precedents, and no amount of reality can shake their convictions. For them, acceptance of reality equates to a denial of faith.

It’s always the same — this time it is different; this time socialism is democratic. So, what is this mysterious democratic socialism? How is it different?

For the most of us who are not familiar with the terminology and Marxism, ponder this:  

Social democracy is a political ideology that has as its goal the establishment of socialism through the implementation of a policy regime that includes, but is not limited to, high taxation, government regulation of private enterprises, and the establishment of a universal welfare state.{mosads}

In 1903 Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) was having the Second Party Congress to adopt the Party platform of transition from capitalism to socialism. The leaders of the Party, Julius Martov and Pavel Axelrod, aimed at a peaceful regime change via democratic process. After gaining power, they would use the authority of government bureaucracy to destroy capitalism by overburdening it with taxation and regulations. A radical faction led by Vladimir Lenin rejected this approach and demanded a revolutionary tactic with the imposition of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Evidently, neither faction had illusions that this unnatural social organization could be implemented on a voluntary basis.

In the end, the Party split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks ultimately won, became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and eventually liquidated their comrades in arms in accordance with Marxist comradeship ritual.

Nowadays, the Mensheviks’ concept adopted by American socialists is being promulgated by Bernie Sanders and his disciples as an alternative to Marxism. This Marxist’s Trojan horse is intended to enact socialism by installing the Hugo Chavezes of this world through the democratic process.

Democratic socialism is not a new version of socialism; it is just another method of establishing socialism.

This slow-roll strategy designed to do to the United States incrementally what Russian Bolshevism did to Russia in 1917 abruptly.

Notwithstanding its heavy Russian accent, democratic socialism is bringing under one roof all the true believers and intellectuals disheartened and disillusioned by the ugliness of Stalinism, Maoism, and other socialist “isms” but still yearning for equality, fairness and righteousness. It is also intended to ascertain ideological cohesion among pseudo-patriot advocates of strong governmental authority and left-wing lunatics, to whom capitalism is a common enemy.{mossecondads}

Regardless of how the socialists come to power and what variants between political flavors of Christian democratic socialism, Soviet-style revolutionary socialism, Democratic socialism or any other kind of socialism are, they are all based on the same blueprint — Karl Marx’s “scientific socialism” — and share the common mantra: “fair and equitable” distribution of wealth. Hence, the differences are superficial. The ultimate goal of socialism is economic equality. 

If the untutored graduates of Boston University and supporters of socialism absorb human history, they may realize that the only historical datum that points to economic equality goes back to the era of primitive communism. There were no property and no wealth, resulting in total economic equality — in poverty.

Ironically, this is the only way economic equality can be achieved. There is no equality in wealth.

Those who criticize socialism for its failure to create wealth are missing the point. Socialism is not about wealth creation; it is about wealth distribution. In this context, socialism works, it works as it supposed to. Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, etc. are not socialism’s failures; they are actually a fulfillment. We have to be mindful that every ism — communism, socialism, fascism, etc. — has its supporters and benefactors. Those who imagine themselves on the receiving end, have every reason to think they will be better off with socialism.

In1846 French philosopher and socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon criticized Karl Marx’s theories in his book “System of Economical Contradictions: or, The Philosophy of Poverty.” Since then, the generations of true believers have been endlessly stepping on the same rake expecting different results. In this manner, they have been proving time after time that Proudhon was right then and he is right now — socialism, whether democratic or otherwise, is the philosophy of poverty.

Alexander G. Markovsky is a senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research, a conservative think tank hosted at King’s College, New York City, which examines national security, energy, risk-analysis and other public policy issues, He is the author of “Anatomy of a Bolshevik” and “Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It.” He is the owner and CEO of Litwin Management Services, LLC. He can be reached at info@litwinms.com