Democratic Socialism – “Free Cheese” in a Mousetrap

Democratic Socialism – “Free Cheese” in a Mousetrap

A recent article by Paulo Ferreira, published by the Mises Institute, examines which socialist groups in Europe “maintained formal and working relationships with the National Socialists”

In Germany. The result is a non-exhaustive list of various communist, socialist, and, notably, democratic socialist formations. While this may shock leftist intellectuals, who wish to turn America into some “socialist paradise” and readily label their opponents as “fascist,” it is hardly a surprise for those of us who have experienced actual socialism.

Unlike totalitarian socialists, who resort to brutal oppression to impose total control on society, the so-called “democratic” socialists have deviated from traditional Marxism by advocating a peaceful version of socialism. During the 20^th century, and especially in its first half, many people favored democratic socialism, out of a misguided belief that it could improve the human condition.

This was understandable at the time, given the misleading allure of the term “democratic socialism” and the lack of widespread knowledge about the communist atrocities and utter disregard for human rights. Well concealed was not only the abject failure of socialist planned economies to abolish poverty but also the massive and deadly starvation they caused, most notably in the Soviet Union, and later in China.

Today democratic socialism is often understood as a welfare state that promotes economic equality and generates benefits by government-imposed redistribution of wealth. This may sound appealing in theory, at least at first blush, but can such non-violent socialism function by itself? An amusing answer is provided by Slavic folklore.

There is an old Bulgarian proverb, “The injured carries the healthy,” which refers to a Slavic folk tale about a he-wolf and a she-fox. The fox felt hungry but was too lazy to procure her own food. She told the wolf they were invited to a village wedding with roasted lamb, chicken, and other delicacies. When they reached the house with the wedding celebration, the fox tricked the ravenous wolf into peeking down the chimney, then pushed him down with all her strength.

The villagers beat up the poor wolf and chased him away, while the sly fox took advantage of the distraction and gorged herself on the tasty feast. She then pretended to suffer greatly and tearfully told the wolf the villagers had broken her bones. The gullible wolf could barely walk but offered to carry the fox, who seemed the worse for wear. The fox could not contain her enjoyment and merrily hummed while riding on the wolf’s back: “The injured carries the healthy, the injured carries the healthy.”

Like the fox in this story, socialist policies may exist within democratic societies, but not independently, since they feed off the abundance produced by free enterprise, i.e. by capitalism. And like the wolf, capitalism carries such policies on its back. At the same time, however, socialism’s apologists are constantly deriding and injuring the tenets of free enterprise.

All historical examples of pure, independent socialism are of the violent kind. In reality, democratic socialism cannot exist independently, since it is economically unsustainable. Simply put, somebody has to pay for it. In other words, it needs capitalism. Welfare ceases to exist when there is no wealth to enable it. Welfare policies within capitalist economies do not define these economies as socialist.

Democratic socialism is an oxymoron, since democracy is incompatible with socialism both politically and economically. Politically, socialism rejects the notion that individuals possess inherent worth, outside of their social usefulness, and it takes away their rights and liberties. Economically, socialism controls people’s right to choose what work to do and how to spend their earnings. As early as 1848, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that liberal democracy gave all possible value to each individual, while socialism made “each man an agent, an instrument, a number.” (p. 546)

But what about Scandinavian “socialism,” one might ask? Proponents of socialism often cite the Nordic countries as a socialist ideal into which they wish to convert American society. Let us take a closer look.

I have a certain fondness for Scandinavia. When my mother was pregnant with me, I was reportedly kicking a lot, and everyone assumed, in the absence of ultrasound imaging, that I would be a boy. Surprised by my gender, my parents had to produce a name on the spot. They had just seen Henrik Ibsen’s play A Doll’s House and decided to name me Nora, after the play’s Norwegian protagonist. (They liked the sound of the name, not the touted feminist message of the play.)

When I was a child, I adored Astrid Lindgren’s books and must have read them over fifty times. I was mesmerized by the books’ warmth and humor and vicariously relished the free-spirited adventures of Pippi Longstocking, Karlsson “who lived on the roof,” the Brothers Lionheart, or Emil of Lönneberga.

So, is Scandinavia really socialist? Apologists of this view cite the Nordic countries’ welfare systems and high tax rates, but is this actual socialism?

Scandinavian mentality has a high regard for independence and human dignity, and Scandinavian economy is not planned but a free market economy. Sweden was one of the few countries that did not impose pandemic lockdowns despite extreme peer pressure and judgment.

As the Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen noted in 2015 during his speech at Harvard, “I know that some people in the United States associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

Scandinavia has a free market economy despite socialist elements such as welfare and high income taxes for individuals. Universally admired author Astrid Lindgren became so incensed with Swedish tax rates that she published a blistering pamphlet pointing out that by following the letter of Swedish law, her income tax would have to be 102 percent! Apparently, her satire prompted a reform in the Swedish tax legislation.

It is incorrect to label countries with free market economies, traditional respect for individual rights, and some welfare policies “socialist,” just as a botanist would not label a tree with a parasitic plant growing on it by the name of the parasitic plant. An oak with ivy growing on it is still called oak, not ivy.

Democratic socialism cannot exist as a self-sufficient system. Welfare policies in Western countries rely on market-generated economic surplus to support them. Government efforts to help those unable to help themselves would work better if managed efficiently and locally—by limiting state intervention and encouraging private and voluntary benefaction. As Margaret Thatcher famously noted, “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”

History and common sense teach us to be wary of government welfare efforts—as the popular adage says, “the only free cheese is in a mousetrap.”

—————————

Nora D. Clinton is a Research Scholar at the Legal Insurrection Foundation. She was born and raised in Sofia, Bulgaria. She holds a PhD in Classics and has published extensively on ancient documents on stone. In 2020, she authored the popular memoir Quarantine Reflections Across Two Worlds. Nora is a co-founder of two partner charities dedicated to academic cooperation and American values. She lives in Northern Virginia with her husband and son. 

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.