Is an Anti-Communism Week Necessary?

Commentary

Should the proclamation by President Donald Trump earlier this month to create an official Anti-Communism Week even be necessary? Shouldn’t the administration and congressional members be aware of the insidious nature of communism and socialism? Or are they taking this stand to remind the nation about the devastating effects of communism and socialism ever since the Russian Revolution of 1917?

However, one could enlighten Americans regarding the colossal failures of socialism—indistinguishable from communism throughout history—in many nations until one is blue in the face, and yet some might refuse to accept the truth. They might double or triple down by saying that socialist doctrines haven’t been attempted enough. Someone once noted that trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

Economist and author Frédéric Bastiat understood that socialism is an artificial and manipulative economic and political system that runs counter to human nature as it abolishes private property and crushes freedom and initiative. Economist Friedrich Hayek argued that central economic and social planning is inefficient, because this secular ideology takes decisions regarding free markets and productivity out of the hands of free-willed individuals.

Hayek believed that competition and individual ambition lead to better economic outcomes. Ludwig von Mises defined socialism as utopian because it is impossible to create a market without private property. Business competition generates pricing signals to determine the value of goods according to the laws of supply and demand.

If these economists and others, such as Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams, were students of history and analyzed the dismal results of socialist experiments, why does socialism continue to find favor among large numbers of the elites and young people? Is it due to the short attention span of the upcoming generation, some of whom possess an unearned sense of entitlement? Or are some folks vulnerable to noble-sounding phrases such as progressivism and democratic socialism? Do they feel that the state will provide for them even if they possess a minimal work ethic?

Socialists believe that money should be seized from those who have earned it and redistributed to the “oppressed,” who often lack initiative. What happens when other people’s money (high taxes) runs out, and an array of freebies begin to dry up? Will there be food and health care rationing?

The bottom line is that socialism punishes productivity and rewards folks who don’t pull their own weight. It posits that human rights emanate from government and not from a divine source. Those who disagree are isolated and marginalized according to Saul Alinsky’s interpretation of social activism outlined in his book “Rules For Radicals.”

Who benefits from socialism? It is the leaders who control the levers of power. They possess the freedom and power to shape the narrative that portrays the masses as perpetual victims of capitalism. Those who are subjugated by socialist propaganda become equally miserable rather than equally fulfilled as human beings.

A Far Better Alternative

What should young people understand about socialism versus other governing options? Youngsters ought to be taught from a young age about the realities of socialism, rather than the contradictory theory that collective equality, freedom, and happiness are gained by surrendering personal freedom. What the state can give can also be taken away.

The free market surrounds youngsters. Do they want to give up what they earn and hand it to a faceless bureaucracy? They need to become aware of the consequences of actual socialist policies so that they don’t become dependent on empty promises.

Economic socialism defies common sense. For example, the pilgrims in the Plymouth Colony started a communal system of productivity with no private property. It didn’t work out well because some settlers were productive while others hardly worked, yet goods were distributed to all settlers. This caused discontent, so Gov. William Bradford devised a system of private property wherein all settlers had to work in order to survive. This free enterprise system was more effective as it generated a surplus of goods that allowed for trade.

Another example is the state of Israel. From its founding until the 1980s, Israel experimented with a socialist economic model that failed to trigger much innovation or prosperity for the state. Once it shifted gears from a socialist model of government programs to a free market economy, the economy took off, and it is now one of the most dynamic and innovative economies in the world.

Third, Argentina suffered under Peronism for decades, which was a form of military-led top-heavy socialism. Over time, the economy suffered because of economic statism. Money became almost worthless, and goods were scarce. Two years ago, President Javier Milei was elected on a platform of government reform and private sector growth.

He took a chainsaw to numerous government programs, and now the country is gradually moving toward free enterprise mixed with more efficient government services. Youngsters should learn that in a democracy, individuals chart their own destinies rather than the state and that people everywhere desire dignity, liberty, and opportunity.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.