By Humberto Belli (*)
The political right recently prevailed in Colombia and Peru, but by razor-thin margins. This suggests that in many countries the left, or advocates of socialism, continue to command the support of nearly half the population. Nor is this phenomenon confined to poorer societies. According to Gallup, 66 percent of American Democrats—and more than half of Generation Z—express sympathy for socialism. This should concern anyone who values freedom: those who believe that capitalism, or the free enterprise system, is the greatest engine of prosperity and that liberal democracy offers the strongest protection for individual rights and aspirations.
There are, of course, many varieties of the left and of socialism. They range from the relatively moderate, which seeks to expand the welfare state and impose greater regulation on the private sector, to the more radical, which aims to place the means of production under state ownership—or, as its proponents prefer to say, «nationalize» them—and concentrate as much power as possible in the hands of the state. Yet they share a common ethical and philosophical foundation. One element is a deep distrust of, and at times outright hostility toward, private enterprise and individual liberty. Rather than seeing entrepreneurs as creators of wealth, innovation, and progress, the left often portrays them as exploiters driven by greed, enriching themselves at the expense of the poor. Rather than encouraging individual autonomy, it seeks to prescribe behavior and beliefs from above. Another defining characteristic is its favorable view of the state, which it regards as a benevolent force capable of restraining corporate greed and redistributing resources to the needy.
Read also: Chinese Communist Party Backs the Ortega-Murillo Regime as Expert Warns of Intensifying Repression
The rhetoric of the socialist left is undeniably appealing. In a world they divide between rich and poor, they present themselves as champions of the latter. They promise to lift people out of poverty by taking more from those who have more and expanding public services, subsidies, and income transfers for low-income families. It is therefore no surprise that raising taxes—especially on the wealthy—is a hallmark of nearly every socialist agenda. Nor is it surprising that they view the state as a more capable manager than private entrepreneurs, believing that businesses placed «in the hands of the people»—a euphemism for state ownership—will operate more efficiently, offer lower prices, and improve quality. This explains their support for the nationalization of railroads, telecommunications, energy, and other industries, as well as New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s proposal to establish government-owned grocery stores.
Those who think this way present themselves as the politicians with the biggest hearts—those most deeply moved by the suffering of the poor and most committed to alleviating it. Yet this claim conceals the fact that their charitable ambitions are financed with other people’s money. Likewise, their drive to expand the size and power of the state also serves another purpose: rewarding their own political class by creating vast bureaucracies that are loyal, dependent, and often inefficient.
What is remarkable is that, despite the overwhelming historical record exposing the falsehood of these promises, so many people remain unaware of it. A basic knowledge of modern history is enough to see the pattern. Wherever socialism has been tried, it has ended in failure. The examples—the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, among many others—are so obvious that one might expect them to have thoroughly discredited the agendas of these self-proclaimed saviors of the people.
When socialism ruled half of Germany, so many people sought to flee to the capitalist West that the regime had to build a massive wall to keep them from leaving. Even the milder versions of socialism encourage people to pack their bags. In the United States there are no walls, but thousands of residents of the so-called blue states, governed largely by Democratic progressives, have been relocating to red, Republican-led states.
You may be interested: Five Reasons Why Daniel Ortega Is Considered a Threat to the U.S. and the Region
Clearly, one reason socialist ideas continue to attract support is ignorance—that is, a lack of education or objective information. Left-wing politicians and academics continue to shape minds because there are too few educational institutions and intellectual forces to challenge them. This reality should give pause to those who have the resources to invest more actively in the battle of ideas on behalf of freedom, particularly the business community. Ironically, its insufficient engagement in that intellectual struggle is itself one of the reasons why flawed ideas continue to captivate so many people. One can only hope that this will change. Much is at stake.
(*) The author is a sociologist and historian and the author of In Search of the Promised Land: A History of Nicaragua, 1492–2019.
