RED JOURNALISM: Washington Post Defends Marx 👉🏿 “Five Myths About Socialism”

President Trump used his State of the Union speech to position America squarely against the rising tide of socialism. The Washington Post has chosen to take the other side.

Perspective: Five myths about socialism


The author of the article contradicts herself numerous times, and remains completely silent on the hundreds of millions of corpses piled atop the alter of Marx, so we will be brief in deconstructing her apology for the left.

Socialism is a single coherent ideology.

…socialism has multiple meanings and interpretations, which have to be disentangled before a discussion about its merits can begin. One distinction centers on whether socialism is a system that must supplant capitalism or one that can harness the market’s immense productive capacity for progressive ends. Karl Marx, who predicted that historical forces would inevitably lead to capitalism’s demise and to government control of industry, was the most famous proponent of the first type of socialism. An impatient Vladi­mir Lenin argued instead that rather than waiting for history to run its course, a revolutionary vanguard should destroy capitalism.

Other socialists, however, did not accept the violent, undemocratic nature of that course, although they agreed that capitalism was unjust and unstable. The left’s role, in the view of these “democratic socialists” — the Czech-Austrian theorist Karl Kautsky, for instance — was to remind citizens of capitalism’s defects and rally popular support for an alternative economic system that would end private ownership and assert popular control over the means of production.

  1. If the Government is “harnessing” the market, it’s not free. It’s harnessed. #Derp
  2. If only the left granted Conservatives as much nuance and latitude as they do themselves. Everyone in a red hat is a nazi. Christians are homophobes. But marxists who want to destroy capitalism through force and marxists who want to eat away at capitalism incrementally over time are totally different, and it’s not fair to put them in the same camp.

Socialism and democracy are incompatible.

After the Russian Revolution, a commitment to democracy became a key distinction dividing socialists from communists. The Bolsheviks split off from the Socialist International in 1919 because socialists would not to commit to overthrowing capitalism by “all available means, including armed force.” And after World War II, socialist and social democratic parties became mainstays of democratic systems in Europe.

Doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy? Socialists are TOTALLY different from communists because communists want to destroy capitalism through violence, and socialists want to destroy capitalism incrementally, like a frog in boiling water.

Hold your hats, folks. Myth 3 is where it really gets interesting! It turns out, socialism and free markets go together like peas and carrots!

All socialists want to abolish markets and private property.

Communists, when in power, have done away with markets and private property. Democratic socialists say that in principle they hope capitalism will disappear over the long run, but in the meantime they advocate piecemeal changes in the ownership and control of economic resources — bank nationalization, for instance. (Democratic socialists have never fully held power anywhere, so their programs remain largely theoretical.) And social democrats have focused on redistributing the fruits of markets and private enterprise rather than abolishing them. Most of the policies advocated by politicians like Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — including universal health care, free college education, and higher wealth and income taxes — are clearly achievable within a capitalist system.  

  1. Democratic Socialists have absolutely had 100% control of several countries, the most high profile of which is the sh*thole formally known as Venezuela. Their Chavizmo revolution was midwifed by America’s most prominent Democrats and celebrities.
  2. In order to “redistribute the fruits of markets and private enterprise rather than abolishing them” you first have to seize those fruits. That’s the opposite of private property. Either the author is profoundly ignorant or profoundly dishonest. She can choose.

When socialism is tried, it collapses.

Communism certainly failed, but social democracy has arguably been the single most successful modern ideology or political movement. Stable European democracies arose after World War II because a social consensus married relatively free markets and private ownership of the means of production with expanded welfare states, progressive taxation and other forms of government intervention in the economy and society. Without the impressive economic results generated by the market, the huge improvements in living standards in the West after the war would not have been possible; the 30 years after 1945 were Europe’s fastest period of economic growth ever. But without the welfare state, the benefits of growth would not have been distributed so widely: Inequality declined dramatically during the postwar decades. 

This might be the biggest lie of article. The reason Europe is able to exist at all is because the USA has guaranteed their security for decades, and rebuilt their economies after their fetish with purified leftism drove the continent to murderous ruin. Without American capitalism, there is ZERO European socialism. None.

Socialism offers a ready-made solution to numerous current problems.

It offers no solution to anything.


The author of this disgusting defense of socialism, professor Sheri Berman, will profit handsomely from the socialist utopia American Democrats want to impose. “Free” college will mean job security for professors who produce little to nothing of any real tangible value. That bubble is about to burst under the $TRILLION in student loan debt, so expect a lot more of these desperate attempts to save their institutional privilege.