Citing Sidney Hook, the piece says socialism’s pull is judging markets by results and socialism by promises; “democratic socialist” is a rebrand because historically socialist states delivered poverty and concentrated power, not Scandinavian private-ownership welfare states.

Socialism is defined as collective ownership of the means of production—which in practice means officials, not “the people,” decide; without prices and exit, planners cannot know demand (Soviet shoes) and never go out of business.

Markets channel self-interest so sellers must please buyers; captive venues without competition fleece customers. Human nature is treated as stubbornly self-interested, so sharing must be taught and socialism cannot outrun it.

Few intellectuals have had a greater effect on me than New York University political philosopher Sidney Hook. As a young man growing up in Brooklyn, he was drawn to socialism; when he got older he became a critic of it. He aptly explained that during the Depression he made the mistake of judging capitalism by what it did and socialism by what it promised.

To be sure, socialism has a great allure, especially to young people today who are beset with high prices, high taxes and modest salaries. “Affordability” is music to their ears, which is why it has become the popular refrain of so-called democratic socialists.

Let’s stop right there. Why do today’s socialists insist on being called “democratic” socialists, and not simply........

© Eurasia Review