Former Soviet Chess Champion Explains Realities of Socialism to Bernie Supporters
Garry Kasparov: “It corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself”
Apparently, Bernie Sanders’ supporters can’t stop themselves from expressing their thoughts about how great socialism is.
The former former Soviet chess champion has taken to Facebook to express his thoughts about being lectured by the uninformed about something he knows all too well.
I’m enjoying the irony of American Sanders supporters lecturing me, a former Soviet citizen, on the glories of Socialism and what it really means! Socialism sounds great in speech soundbites and on Facebook, but please keep it there.
In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty.
Talking about Socialism is a huge luxury, a luxury that was paid for by the successes of capitalism. Income inequality is a huge problem, absolutely. But the idea that the solution is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd.
…
[Image via Newsweek]
To be fair, Sanders’s supporters have no idea what socialism is or how it works or how it destroys not only societies but souls.
Once you give power to the govt it is nearly impossible to get it back, & it will be used in ways you cannot expect. https://t.co/oVQdYob3Ot
— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) March 10, 2016
In this Daily Beast article, Kasparov writes:
My goal was to remind people that Americans talking about socialism in the 21st century was a luxury paid for by the successes of capitalism in the 20th. And that while inequality is a huge problem, the best way to increase everyone’s share of pie is to make the pie bigger, not to dismantle the bakery.
My conclusion that “the idea that the solution [to inequality] is more government, more regulation, more debt, and less risk is dangerously absurd” apparently had great resonance, and I think I know why. There is a growing consensus that America has deep troubles, and no one can agree on solutions. Everyone agrees that Washington should change, and some want the government to do much more while others want it to do much less. Many of the traditional economic numbers say that America is doing fine, and yet polls say that Americans—especially Sanders supporters—are angry about the present and fearful about the future.
I often talk about the need to restore a vision of America as a positive force in the world, a force for liberty and peace. The essential complement to this is having big positive dreams at home as well, of restoring America’s belief in ambition and risk, of innovation and exploration, of free markets and free people. America transformed the 20th century in its image with its unparalleled success. American technology created the modern world while American culture infused it and American values inspired it.
In recent decades that storyline has flipped. The tireless work ethic and spirit of risk-taking and sacrifice have slowly eroded. This complacency was accelerated by the end of the Cold War and it has proved very difficult to overcome in the absence of an existential enemy to compete with. The booming innovation engine of job creation has fallen behind the accelerating pace of technology that replaces workers. The result has been slower growth, stagnant wages, and the steady shift of wealth from labor to capital. In such situations many people turn to the government for help and the siren song of socialism grows louder.
Not only is Kasparov critical of Sanders’ and his supporters’ naive belief in socialism (as they misunderstand it), but he’s been critical of both Obama and Vladimir Putin. In an op-ed for CNN.com, Kasparov writes that the U. S. cannot “lead from behind.”
[Featured image of anti-Trump protesters Chicago, via Townhall]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Checkmate!
“In practice, it corrodes not only the economy but the human spirit itself, and the ambition and achievement that made modern capitalism possible and brought billions of people out of poverty.”
And the same is true of any of the Collectivist forms, including the fascist economic model that Der Donald seeks to impose.
Give it a rest. This article is about Sanders, not Trump.
“I often talk about the need to restore a vision of America as a positive force in the world, a force for liberty and peace. The essential complement to this is having big positive dreams at home as well, of restoring America’s belief in ambition and risk, of innovation and exploration, of free markets and free people. America transformed the 20th century in its image with its unparalleled success. American technology created the modern world while American culture infused it and American values inspired it.”
It’s really about Kasperov and his economic wisdom.
Rags–This article, and much of life, is not about Trump.
I am a Cruz supporter, but upset at his reaction to his blaming the violence at the riot in Chicago on Trump.
If I should change my mind and vote for Trump, it will be for that reason, and to spite the crazed anti-Trumpites out there, of which you are Exhibit 1.
No. The article is about Kasparov and his insights into economics and liberty.
It isn’t about Cruz, or an attack on me personally.
But your post was.
http://fee.org/articles/economic-fascism/
Here, learn something you didn’t understand…
what fascinates me is how definitions change, way back what we are calling today socialism is the old days was communism, the US has already embraced socialism in a big way.
Even the communists always referred to their governments and countries as “socialist”, e.g. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the USSR promoted “international (i.e., Soviet-dominated) socialism.” There is, in fact little effective difference. Under socialism, the state controls the means of production while it remains in private hands. Under communism, the state both controls the means of production and owns it.
Unfortunately the communists have a stock response to criticisms of this sort, in fact to any knowledge based on actual history or any sort of experience. And that is that those systems weren’t real communism, so their obvious failures are irrelevant. Their own idea of communism is by definition infallible, it just has to be implemented properly.
When Vladimir Ulyanov was just a harmless crank sitting around all day in Swiss coffee houses, penning furious tracts and broadsides under hundreds of pennames (“Lenin” being the only one well-known today), his targets were usually other socialists and communists. He’d rail about how “stupid”, “immature”, “infantile” his opponents and their ideas were, long past the point of tedium. And of course as we all know, Ulyanov’s ideas were none too good either. But, as I’m sure some of the more widely-read Sanders supporters would point out, what Lenin eventually produced wasn’t real communism …
And, again for the sake of clarity, Sanders is ALSO more a fascist in terms of his economics than either of the two other Collectivist forms.
He has no intention…or possibility…of nationalizing any businesses, for instance.
Instead, like Der Donald, he plans on controlling BIG BUSINESSES while leaving nominal ownership in the hands of owners.
All Collectivist forms have in common a COMMAND economic model, and abhor MARKET economics.
As a practical consideration, even granting you every thing you say….granting every single thing…I want to point out that as a practical matter, IF “der Donald” were nominated then there would be two potential outcomes. He might win the general in which case he and his supporters would go head to head against the liberal media, Democrats, the entire federal bureaucracy and large chunks of state bureaucracies plus assorted activist groups, significant numbers of RINOs and the UN. Or, he might lose. In which case Pres Sanders or Pres Hillary would use all the groups prior mentioned to solidify and extend the Obama policies with little opposition.
As a practical matter you might want to make that part of your calculations.
I took a time out and taught middle school for three years. The first day of class, my entire plans for the year went up in flames. My only goal for each of the three years I taught was to get the kids to think. They could not reason at all. Show them steps A, B, and C, and ask them how you could get from A to C, they could not understand that you moved from A to B to C. Unbelievable.
I’m afraid many (probably most) people in America are sufficiently damaged by public education to the point that they could not comprehend Mr. Kasparov’s short three paragraphs.
Scary, but it resonates. Our middle kid, for example, saw Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth movie in class 3 times over the 4 high school years. She also got lots of “teaching” about gays and other social issues.. However, her science and math came up way short.
Probably the teachers and educational system is just deteriorating. But it is as if the teachers had decided America was the root of evil. And that the way to address that was to make sure the next generation didn’t have enough technical competence to maintain America’s position in the world.
Yes, I too, was thinking about how much of Bernie’s popularity can be attributed to our public school system. Nowadays, it is fashionable to teach social studies in a way that puts much emphasis on all the terrible things the U.S. has done — slavery, persecuting native Americans, women’s lack of rights, and bigotry in general — and very little on what makes us such a wonderful country — the constitution, democracy, equal rights, legal immigration, etc. The result is that young people think of our country as a failure that requires a “political revolution” (to use Bernie’s slogan, but which really means socialism). Perhaps we should focus more on why America has been a shining light to the world and why so many want to immigrate here. Maybe we should encourage kids to say the pledge of allegiance every day instead of allowing them to sit down. I find Bernie’s appeal a direct affront to our proud history.
“Once you give power to the govt it is nearly impossible to get it back, & it will be used in ways you cannot expect.”
Garry Kasparov
“You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”
Lyndon Johnson
Garry Kasparov gets lectured on socialism by Bernie supporters and people are surprised? Come on, this is the new America. As a chemistry professor, I routinely and increasingly, as of late, get lectured by incoming freshmen about how I do not understand chemistry and they do simply because I do not share their opinion on global warming.
>
We live in a brave new world where there is no respect left and everyone who reads one or two internet articles are now experts.
A good friend teaches 300 and 400 level business courses at a local University. He tells me these students are unable to reason, and they read at a 7th grade level, if that.
And of course, they’re ALWAYS right…(sigh)…
I keep reading about the huge problem of income and wealth disparity, and am perpetually puzzled by it. How is it a problem?
For those who have the large incomes or the great wealth – where is that money? Is is amassed in big piles of gold coins ala Scrooge McDuck?
– Or is it in stocks and bonds (e.g. capitalizing industry)?
– Or perhaps adornments to their homes and mansions (e.g. supporting individual artists)?
– Maybe it’s in philanthropic donations and endeavors (e.g. enriching the world for those less able to afford it)?
– Perhaps it’s in the fees and salaries for the army of people needed to maintain the physical aspects of the wealthy lifestyle (e.g. staff, repair folks, maintenance folks, suppliers, managers, fiscal managers, etc.)?
Wealthy people, and high income people do not amass big piles of cash. They put it out to work, and it percolates through the economy. They may have this huge net worth number at the bottom of the balance sheet, but that cash is NOT sitting there in their pocket; it is NOT being denied to anyone.
How is this a problem?
Good question. I believe the issue is optimal investment.
If only a few rich people hold most of the invest-able wealth, they have limited mental capacity to analyze opportunities for investment in the world. This leads to big/famous/well-advertised companies/opportunities getting a disproportionate allocation of investment capital. This isn’t really bad, just sub-optimal. Many great, higher ROI small invest-able opportunities are overlooked –> society loses a bit.