Socialism is getting a lot of attention these days. It’s peddled as an economic system that provides opportunities that are otherwise denied by a free market. While it’s more than credible to dismiss Socialism in the way it wrongly assumes that if you’re wealthy, you’re corrupt and if you’re poor, you’re oppressed, there’s a darker and more sinister premise behind it that needs to be addressed.
In the end, Socialism isn’t so much an economic system as much as it’s a political monster that replaces the law of supply and demand with the coercion of force and control. The end result isn’t so much the elimination of poverty as much as it manipulates individuals and destroys lives.
Bottom line:
Socialism doesn’t work because Socialism lies.
It lies about things are worth, it lies about who you are, and it lies about what you’re able to do.
- Price controls artificially adjust the value of goods and services as part of giving the appearance of a healthy economy.
- People are defined, not according to who they are, but according to how much they make.
- Your success is not based on what you can earn, but on what the government is willing to give.
Let’s look at how this breaks down…
The Bourgeoisie
At the heart of Socialism is the philosophy of Karl Marx who believed that humanity could be categorized under two headings: The Bourgeoisie, which refers to the rich, ruling class, and the Proletariat, which is the common worker.
Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other
– Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.1
Frederick Engels was a German philosopher and political theorist. He worked closely with Marx and co-wrote the Communist Manifesto. He elaborates on the class distinction which served as the foundation upon which the Socialist doctrine was built:
The basic thought running through the Manifesto – that economic production, and the structure of society of every historical epoch necessarily arising therefrom, constitute the foundation for the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently (ever since the dissolution of the primaeval communal ownership of land) all history has been a history of class struggles, of struggles between exploited and exploiting, between dominated and dominating classes at various stages of social evolution; that this struggle, however, has now reached a stage where the exploited and oppressed class (the proletariat) can no longer emancipate it
self from the class which exploits and oppresses it (the bourgeoisie), without at the same time forever freeing the whole of society from exploitation, oppression, class struggles – this basic thought belongs solely and exclusively to Marx.
I have already stated this many times; but precisely now is it necessary that it also stand in front of the Manifesto itself.2
Redistribution of Wealth
One of Karl Marx’s most favorite quotes is:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.3
The term, “redistribution of wealth” is a mask that conceals the real world demolition of the intellectual capital that creates wealth.
“Wealth” is more than just monetary abundance. It is the creativity and the ingenuity of those who create abundance. So, from that perspective, you can’t “redistribute” a skillset or a braintrust.
Physical wealth is a product of human capital – the knowledge, skills, talents and other qualities that exist inside the heads of people – where it cannot be confiscated. 4
More often than not, the redistribution of wealth manifests itself in the nationalization of various industries. The government assumes control of various goods and services by eliminating private ownership. But by eliminating private ownership, you also eliminate the expertise and local knowledge necessary to ensure a quality result.
Price Control
Harold Demsetz (May 31, 1930 – January 4, 2019) was an American professor of Economics at UCLA. He gave a talk in the winter of 1970 at the University of Winnipeg where he said that using price controls to reduce inflation is like responding to cold weather in Winnipeg by breaking the thermometer. His point was that just as thermometers respond to temperature, prices are an indicator of underlying economic phenomena, namely supply and demand. Breaking a thermometer doesn’t cause the temperature to rise; controlling prices doesn’t cause inflation to fall.5
- Distorted Price Signals: Prices are not just numbers; they communicate critical information. High prices tell producers to increase output and tell consumers to conserve. Capping prices cuts off this vital feedback loop, masking root economic problems rather than fixing them. (Why Price Controls Are Disasters | Why Price Controls Always Fail)
- Quality Degradation: To maintain profitability under a price ceiling, suppliers often cut corners. In the housing market, for example, landlords might reduce maintenance, leading to deteriorating living conditions. (James Madison Institute | Investopedia)
- Black Markets: When a mandated price forces goods below their market value, unofficial or illegal markets frequently emerge where buyers pay much higher, unregulated prices to acquire what they need. (Investopedia | American Legislative Exchange Council)
Why China’s Five Year Plan Failed
When Mao Zedong secured power, he nationalized China’s agricultural industry by eliminating private ownership and instituting communes. The idea was to work together and be able to benefit both corporately and individually.By 1955, many started to push back against the new system for different reasons…
Among them, the policies of “unified purchase and sale” and “cooperativeization” are the direct reasons for farmers’ dissatisfaction. First, the advanced cooperatives failed to fulfill their promise to increase the income of the farmers who joined the cooperatives. On the contrary, the income of farmers in many areas was reduced. Second, farmers lost their traditional freedom. They could not move outwards and were restricted from engaging in sideline businesses. Third, cadres abused their power and acted arbitrarily, including arbitrarily disciplining members and even arbitrarily binding and beating members. (Wikipedia)
It makes sense, given the conditions that existed within these communes…
The leadership of the people’s communes became fanatical about implementing government policy, increasing production, meeting targets and outdoing other communes. They demanded a regimented, almost militarized lifestyle, and wielded overzealous expectations about work and production. According to historian Philip Short, “officially, everyone was supposed to have at least six hours’ sleep every two days, but some brigades boasted of working up to four or five days without stopping”.
Other features of communal living included collective childcare, nursing homes, communal kitchens and the banning of cooking at home. Mao proclaimed that “communism means eating for free” and the communal dining halls allowed the government to control all aspects of food distribution and consumption. Most did not like the public dining halls, however, and there were issues with food supply – for example, food allocations intended to last for a week sometimes disappeared in a day. (Alpha History)
It’s interest to see how some completely overlook the abuses that occurred during the five year plan and instead regard it as “successful…”
China’s first Five-Year Plan was successful in increasing the country’s economic growth and expanding key industries, including iron, steel and coal production and machine building. It also initiated China’s shift towards a socialism. Industrial production increased at an average annual rate of 19% between 1952-1957. This success would set the stage for an even more aggressive plan for economic development.China’s Cultural Revolution)
But more than the obvious dismissal of the abuses that occurred during that time, the actual numbers that some want to insist represent a reduction in poverty point to the exact opposite.
There has been much debate about the Maoist period. The rhetoric was certainly propoor. Some aspects of the policy regime probably helped in alleviating poverty over the 30 years following 1950, such as by attenuating income and wealth disparities and investing in basic education and health care. However, the historical record makes it hard to believe that there could have been a large reduction in rural poverty in China over 1950-80. Food availability per capita changed negligibly between the beginning and the end of the 30 years after 1949 (Roser and Ritchie 2013). The real earnings of China’s farmers had also stagnated on average over this period (Lardy 1983). Retained grain output (output less procurement) per capita of the rural population grew at only 0.6% per annum over 1952-77 (Li and Yang 2005). Multiple indicators point to long-term economic stagnation for the rural sector (Huang et al. 2008) (National Bureau of Economic Research | Poverty in China Since 1950: A Counterfactual Perspective).
China: A Case Study
Part of what makes Socialism such a failure is that it asserts several artificial catalysts into the economy simultaneously that manifest themselves in ways that inevitably lead to disastrous results.
Mao Zedong’s Five Year Plan
You can see those dynamics played out when evaluating China’s economic history. Mao Tse Tsung established the Chinese Communist Party in 1949 and immediately instituted sweeping Socialist reforms that failed horribly because of the forced introduction of programs and techniques that didn’t work (see sidebar).6
Privately owned farms and livestock were confiscated and reorganized as communes managed by the government. This was not at all consistent with what was initially promised, as far as the the land being “redistributed” to the landless. Rather, it was simply confiscated and then owned by the state.7
Those communes included toxic work conditions and an intense control over everyday life including education, social services, and even matters pertaining to marriage and having children.8 The result wasn’t merely something that could be labeled unfortunate, or a good plan that was poorly executed. Even if all the propaganda that was circulated insisting China’s economy was growing was credible, it was dramatically offset by the hardships and injustices that were exacted upon the Chinese population.
Hundred Flowers
In 1957, Mao, in an attempt to position himself as accommodating and magnanimous, launched his “Hundred Flowers” campaign which was promoted as “let one hundred flowers bloom in social science and arts and let one hundred points of view be expressed in the field of science.”9 But what was originally presented as an open forum where complaints and grievances could be heard without any reprisal, quickly became a death warrant to anyone who dared to criticize the CCP.
Initially, the campaign saw enthusiastic participation, with intellectuals airing grievances about corruption, human rights abuses, and oppressive policies. However, this openness soon backfired, as many criticisms became vehement attacks against the CCP. Faced with a wave of dissent, Mao and the party leadership shifted their approach, leading to the Anti-Rightist Campaign, which targeted hundreds of thousands of individuals labeled as “rightists.”10
“Rightists” became the target of persecution in the form of losing their jobs, being assigned to labor camps where they were to be “re-educated.” Many were simply executed.
Deng Xiaping who would later go on to lead the Chinese Communist Party, was one Mao’s most aggressive officers when it came to executing dissidents. At one point, Mao wrote to him and advised to slow down the killings because, “If we kill too many, we will forfeit public sympathy and a shortage of labor power will arise.”11
Real Results
Mao’s socialist approach was being propped up by what appeared to be good numbers, but those numbers were not indicative of what was really going on.
Some aspects of the policy regime probably helped in alleviating poverty over the 30 years following 1950, such as by attenuating income and wealth disparities and investing in basic education and health care. However, the historical record makes it hard to believe that there could have been a large reduction in rural poverty in China over 1950-80. Food availability per capita changed negligibly between the beginning and the end of the 30 years after 1949 (Roser and Ritchie 2013). The real earnings of China’s farmers had also stagnated on average over this period (Lardy 1983). Retained grain output (output less procurement) per capita of the rural population grew at only 0.6% per annum over 1952-77 (Li and Yang 2005). Multiple indicators point to long-term economic stagnation for the rural sector (Huang et al. 2008). 12
The Great Leap Forward
Undaunted, Mao pressed on, determined to convert China’s agricultural economy into something more industrial by focusing on steel production. He called it “The Great Leap Forward.”
Up until now collectivization had been encouraged, now it was official policy. Communes that had numbered 20 to 40 households were now increased to 100-300 households.13 And while agriculture was still necessary, it was subordinated to the production of steel.
Mao’s flawed approach to steel production coupled with absurd agricultural techniques, outrageous goals, and inflated results all culminated in a famine that lasted for three years and claimed between 36 and 40 million lives.14
China is Transformed
After the death of Mao Zedong in 1976, new leadership introduced economic reforms that were nothing short of transformational:
China’s rapid economic growth following its shift from state-led development (central planning) to marketization in 1978 and its drive to join the WTO are testaments to the idea that widening the range of choices open to people—via internal and external trade—is a winning strategy. Under Mao Zedong, protectionism and top-down planning led to a focus on developing heavy industry rather than improving people’s lives by using the market price system to guide economic decisions. In 1970, Chinese real gross domestic product (GDP) stood at only $232 billion (measured in 2015 U.S. dollars). However, once widespread marketization took place and individuals had more opportunities to get rich, real GDP grew to nearly $16 trillion by 2019 (Figure 1).15
Dr James Dorn has a PhD in Economics and has a prestigious resume of academic accomplishments and publications. He has testified before the U.S China Security Review Commission and the Congressional-Executive Commission on China and has served on the White House Commission on Presidential Scholars. He summarizes China’s economic history by saying:
China became an economic powerhouse by opening its markets, recognizing the nonstate sector, and allowing individuals to lift themselves out of poverty. Attempts at industrial policy under the SASAC (State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission) failed. The lesson for China is to continue on the path of marketization and liberalization, not to revert to destructive state control and repression.16
Socialism Doesn’t Share, It Steals
Markets are based on consent, not coercion. Socialism doesn’t work because it replaces freedom with force, and real results with restrictions. In a nutshell, you could describe it as, “I’m going to take what doesn’t belong to me and then enslave those who are trusting me.”
On the surface, Socialism resonates as a noble collaboration that allows everyone to equally benefit. But you’re not really collaborating if your first act is confiscating all privately owned resources, nor are you facilitating an equitable distribution of the benefits if those benefits don’t exist.
Some historians want to promote the idea that China’s first Five Year Plan worked, but they’re basing their assessment on a very carefully curated collection of criteria.
Historians will look at China’s evolution to a more industrial economy and for that reason give Mao’s Five Year Plan an A+. Economists look at Mao’s Five Year Plan and notice that the per capita income was actually lower, adjusted for inflation, in the 1950s than it had been at the end of the Song Dynasty in the 1270s.17
In addition…
Food availability per capita changed negligibly between the beginning and the end of the 30 years after 1949 (Roser and Ritchie 2013). The real earnings of China’s farmers had also stagnated on average over this period (Lardy 1983). Retained grain output (output less procurement) per capita of the rural population grew at only 0.6% per annum over 1952-77 (Li and Yang 2005). Multiple indicators point to long-term economic stagnation for the rural sector (Huang et al. 2008) 18
Socialism doesn’t share, it steals. It doesn’t redistribute wealth, it kills it at the source and then has to control every aspect of the human existence in order to give the appearance of economic stability.
Richard Ebeling is professor of Economics at the Citadel. He’s recognized as one of the leading members of the Austrian School of Economics and has written several books. He says that Socialism creates a situation where the…
…individual is totally and inescapably dependent on the political authority for his very existence.19
You saw that in Cuba where citizens were given a ration book that told them how much food and what type of food they could get.20
Senator Bernie Sanders is well known for his support of Socialism. He often points to Scandinavian countries as successful examples of Socialism.21 The problem, however, is that these countries have a market based economy. In 2015, at an address at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, former Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said…
I know that some people in the US 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.22
What is the Appeal?
Given Socialism’s historical and practical failures, you would think that anyone who would subscribe to it is somehow nonsensical.
But that isn’t the case…
The whole political vision of the left, including socialism and communism, has failed by virtually every empirical test, in countries all around the world. But this has only led leftist intellectuals to evade and denigrate empirical evidence.23
Its toxic nature is often responded to with even greater passion and resolve.
Socialism appeals to different people for different reasons.
- A way to appear sensitive to the poor and marginalized
- A lack of experience with the real world in terms of the complexities of resource allocation, incentives, and human behavior at scale.24
But there’s also a spiritual dynamic that positions Socialism as a superior economic system. Rather than seeing individuals as having been made in the image of their Creator, they’re instead seen as distinguished exclusively according to their income. Any assistance that allows for an improvement in one’s situation is going to come from the state and not from God.25
Dr. Thomas Sowell is an economist who sees both the economy and society in general as a conflict between two visions; the Unconstrained Vision and the Constrained Vision. You see in his hypothesis something that resonates with Scripture…
The Unconstrained Vision
Sowell argues that the unconstrained vision relies heavily on the belief that
human nature is essentially good. Those with an unconstrained vision distrust decentralized processes and are impatient with large institutions and systemic processes that constrain human action. They believe there is an ideal solution to every problem, and that compromise is never acceptable. Collateral damage is merely the price of moving forward on the road to perfection. Sowell often refers to them as “the self anointed.” Ultimately they believe that man is morally perfectible. Because of this, they believe that there exist some people who are further along the path of moral development, have overcome self-interest and are immune to the influence of power and therefore can act as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society. (
Wikipedia)
This “vision” is diametrically opposed to the “Constrained Vision…”
The Constrained Vision
Sowell argues that the constrained vision relies heavily on the belief that human nature is essentially unchanging and that man is naturally inherently self-interested, regardless of the best intentions. Those with a constrained vision prefer the systematic processes of the rule of law and experience of tradition. Compromise is essential because there are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs. Those with a constrained vision favor empirical evidence and time-tested structures and processes over intervention and personal experience. Ultimately, the constrained vision demands checks and balances and refuses to accept that all people could put aside their innate self-interest. (
Wikipedia)
Dr. Sowell explains how these two different visions manifest themselves in an economic context by saying…
The two visions entail every different views of the relationship between members of the existing society. The unconstrained vision has tended historically toward creating more equalized economic and social conditions in society, even if the means chosen imply great inequality in the right to decide such issues and choose such means. Clearly, only very unequal intellectual and moral standing could justify having equality imposed, whether the people want it or not, as Dworkin26 suggests, and only very unequal power would make it possible. It is consistent for the unconstrained vision to promote equalitarian ends by unequalitarian means, given the great differences between those whom Mill called “the wisest and best” and those who have not reached that intellectual and moral level.
Conversely, those with the constrained vision have tended to be less concerned with promoting economic and social equality, but more concerned with the dangers of an inequality of power, producing an articulate ruling elite of rationalists. In Hayek’s27 words:
“The most dangerous state in the growth of civilization may well be that in which man has come to regard all these beliefs as superstitions and refuses to accept or to submit to anything which he does not rationally understand. The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitation of the power of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customer which have not be consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilization built upon them.”28
In other words, the Constrained Vision sees humanity as imperfect and requires both boundaries and incentives to regulate what would otherwise be an unhealthy preoccupation with themselves. The Unconstrained Vision sees humanity as his own absolute and whatever institutions and doctrines that he would otherwise be accountable to are subordinated to the perspective of those who qualify as intellectual elites.
A Biblical Interpretation of Socialism
However you want to logically dispute those who agree with Socialism, the fact that it runs contrary to Biblical Absolutes qualifies this topic as something that needs to be regarded as a spiritual issue, and not just a socioeconomic topic.
- The Bible advocates sharing (Acts 2:43-45)
- Be kind and compassionate (Eph 4:32)
- Be generous to the poor (Prov 19:17 [Dt 15:7-11])
- Don’t be greedy (1 Jn 3:17-18)
But these gestures are voluntary acts of obedience, as opposed to a flawed system lording it over its constituents.
- Don’t take what isn’t yours (Lev 19:13)
- Dishonest pricing (Prov 11:1; 20:23)
In addition, Scripture commends:
- Personal responsibility (Prov 12:14; Gal 6:7-8)
- Solid work ethic (Prov 6:6-11; 2 Thess 3:10)
- Good business decisions (Matt 25:16, 20)
The reason Socialism often translates to pure evil is because the foundation upon which it is built denies the Truth of humanity being created and not merely sorted according to a human convention.
Conclusion
Socialism often poses as a compassionate methodology that eliminates poverty and mediates greed.
But unlike Scripture where sharing and charity are voluntary and personal responsibility is emphasized (Prov 27:23-27), Socialism forces the surrender of all personal property, artificially manipulates the marketplace, and demands total obedience to the state.
Not only does it fail when evaluated according to any practical metric, there is nothing voluntary or charitable about any act that is done under compulsion. You’re not improving the economy by instituting price controls, nor are you fostering teamwork by demonizing personal achievement.
Whatever “doctrine” is being asserted, anything based on the limited, flawed, and corruptible character of the individual is ultimately revealed as being incapable of achieving a perfect outcome, let alone a healthy result.
This was the distinction between the Revolutionary War and the French Revolution.
On one side we have the republican project of the American founders. Their revolution for freedom was grounded in a Lockean understanding of natural rights, in the moderate Scottish Enlightenment, and in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. “We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by…morality and Religion,” wrote John Adams. “Avarice, ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net.” On the other side is the French project, inspired by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Francois-Marie d’Arouet (better known as Voltaire), by the most radical strain of the Continental Enlightenment, and by a supreme confidence in human reason to chart man’s destiny. “Man is born free,” Rousseau declared, “but he is everywhere in chains.” One of the first chains to be cut was the authority of the Christian churches.29
Your identity is your starting point. If the way you see yourself and the world around you is based on the Reality of God and the Truth He brings to the table, you are both empowered by, and accountable to Something greater than yourself.
Jesus said that apart from me, you can do nothing (Jn 15:5). At the same time, Scripture says, nothing is impossible for God and it is His Power and Perspective that works through you (Matt 17:20; 19-26; Phil 2:13).
It’s the perfect and unchanging aspect of God that serves as the source for the prosperity and fulfillment we seek (Josh 1:9). Anything less is a toxic strategy used by the enemy that distracts from all that God is, all that He expects, and all that He would offer.
1. “Communist Manifesto”, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf, p15, accessed July 17, 2026)
2. Ibid, Preface to the 1833 German Edition
3. “Wikipedia”, “From Each According to His Ability, to Each According to His Needs”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_needs, accessed July 26, 2026
4. “Thomas Sowell: Why Income Redistribution Fails in the Long Run” “The Thomas Sowell Show”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pnr8OQ04NDs, accessed July 17m, 2026
5. “Price Controls: Still a Bad Idea”, Hoover Institution, David R. Anderson, https://www.hoover.org/research/price-controls-still-bad-idea, accessed July 17, 2026
6. “The Collector”, “Trofim Lysenko: The Controversial Scientist Who Changed the Soviet Union”, https://www.thecollector.com/trofim-lysenko-controversial-scientist-soviet-union/, accessed July 21, 2026
7. “Adam Smith Institute”, “Mao’s First Five Year Plan & the Great Leap Forward”, https://www.adamsmith.org/the-real-history-of-communism/v/maos-first-five-year-plan-the-great-leap-forward, accessed July 21, 2026
8. “Despite these improvements, the state maintained its control over its citizens. Life for urban Chinese was tightly regimented by way of danwei or work units. The danwei provided the basic structure for labour and regulated many aspects of everyday life, including accommodation, education and social services. Chinese civilians even had to consult their danwei in matters regarding to marriage, having children or travel.” (“Alpha History”, “The First Five Year Plan”, https://alphahistory.com/chineserevolution/first-five-year-plan/, accessed July 21, 2026)
9. “Wikipedia”, “Hundred Flowers Campaign”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign, accessed July 21, 2026
10. “EBSCO”, “Mao’s Hundred Flowers Campaign Begins”, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/maos-hundred-flowers-campaign-begins, accessed July 21, 2026
11. “Wikipedia”, “Anti-Rightist Campaign”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Rightist_Campaign, accessed July 21, 2026
12. “National Bureau of Economic Research”, “Poverty in China Since 1950: A Counterfactual Perspective”, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28370/w28370.pdf, accessed July 21, 2026
13. “Alpha History”, “The Great Leap Forward”, https://alphahistory.com/chineserevolution/great-leap-forward/, accessed July 21, 2026
14. “We have known for some time that Mao Zedong, founder of the People’s Republic of China, was one of the last century’s most brutal and vicious mass murderers. In 2005, Jung Chang and Jon Halliday’s biography of Mao was published in this country to wide acclaim, and for the first time, many of the myths surrounding his rise to power and the nature of his rule after 1949 were brought to light. The authors estimated that Mao “was responsible for over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other twentieth-century leader.”
“One period they covered was Mao’s ‘Great Leap Forward,’ his attempt to rapidly industrialize China in the five years between 1958 and 1962. Chang and Halliday had argued that not only did the program fail; it produced mass starvation, with areas of China resorting to cannibalism. Peasants and city dwellers alike were forced to build home steel furnaces, and all metal implements — including pots and pans used for cooking — were to be smelt, turning each home into a mini local steel producing factory. Mao also ordered that all sparrows be killed, since they ate grain. The “bourgeois” bird was condemned; the result was the upsetting of nature’s ecological balance, as pests and other birds once killed by sparrows began to attack crops. Before long, Mao was asking the Soviet Union to send them 200,000 sparrows from the Soviet Far East.”
Mao had said: ‘Half of China may well have to die,’ and he was prepared for such an outcome. It almost came true. Thirty-eight million people died of starvation and overwork during the Leap and the subsequent famine, which lasted for four long years. This greatest of 20th century manmade famines exceeded the deaths caused by Stalin’s collectivization of the Ukraine. As Mao told his staff, ’50 million (might have to) die … you can’t blame me when people die.'” (“Hudson Institute”, “Mao’s ‘Great Leap Forward’ and the Power of History” Ronald Radosh, https://www.hudson.org/node/34988, accessed July 21, 2026)
15. “Cato Institute”, “China’s Post-1978 Economic Development and Entry into the Global Trading System”, James Dorn, https://www.cato.org/publications/chinas-post-1978-economic-development-entry-global-trading-system#china-needs-free-market-ideas, accessed July 22, 2026
16. Ibid
17. “The Case Against Socialism”, Rand Paul, Broadside Books eBooks, 2019, Kindle Version, p173
18. “National Bureau of Economic Research”, “Poverty in China Since 1950: A Counterfactual Perspective”, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28370/w28370.pdf, accessed July 21, 2026
19. “The Case Against Socialism”, Rand Paul, Broadside Books eBooks, 2019, Kindle Version, LOC 2457
20. Ibid, LOC 989
21. “World Socialist Website”, “Bernie Sanders and the “Scandinavian model”, Jordan Shilton, February, 2016, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/02/26/scan-f26.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com, accessed July 23, 2026
22. “Institute of Economic Affairs”, “The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism”, Corey Iacono, February 26, 2016, https://iea.org.uk/blog/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/#, accessed July 23, 2026
23. “Adam Smith Institute”, “Young People and Socialism” Madsen Pirie, https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/young-people-and-socialism, accessed July 23, 2026
24. “American Enterprise Institute”, “Thomas Sowell Quotations on the ‘vision of the Political Left'”, https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/thomas-sowell-quotations-on-the-political-left/, accessed July 23, 2026
25. “There is an undeniable correlation between socialism and secularism, but does it prove causation? A strong case is made by analyzing the “Nones” at different stages of their flight from faith. Pew Research asked “Nones” in late 2017 the reason they no longer affiliate with a religion. The overwhelming majority of atheist “Nones” (75 percent) said they do not believe in God, while a plurality of agnostic “Nones” (38 percent) said they “question a lot of religious teachings.” Those “Nones” who still believe in God are equally motivated by two factors: They question religious doctrines (25 percent), and they “don’t like the positions churches take on social/political issues” (21 percent).
Further, the data show that “Nones” are becoming increasingly secular as time goes on. The percentage of “Nones” who do not believe in God increased by half from 2007 to 2014. This leads to an inescapable conclusion: The social and political issues that drive a wedge between young people and traditional Christianity – including the envy that drives socialism – eventually blossom into full atheism.” (“Action Institute”, “How socialism causes atheism”, Rev. Ben Johnson, December 11, 2019, https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-29-number-3/how-socialism-causes-atheism, accessed July 23, 2026)
26. Ronald Dworkin was a Professor of Law who had a very liberal approach to jurisprudence and was referred to by Thomas Sowell as an example of how his perspective contributed to the decline of the rule of law.
27. Friedrich Hayek was an Austrian economist and shared the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with Gunnar Myrdal for work on money and economic fluctuations, and the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.
28. “Conflict of Visions” Thomas Sowell, William Morrow & co, United States, 1987, Kindle LOC 776
29. “The Heritage Foundation”, “Two Revolutions for Freedom”, Joseph Loconte, Ph.D., https://www.heritage.org/american-history/commentary/two-revolutions-freedom, accessed July 25, 2026
Bibliography
The Presidency of Salvador Allende
CIA Briefing of the Political Climate in Chile by Richard Helms, November 5, 1970
Office of the Historian, Chile’s Emerging Economic Problems, July 1971
Macroeconomic populism in Chile: Allende and the recession of 1973
Alternative Trade Strategies and Employment Implications: Chile
The Allende Years and the Pinochet Coup, 1969–1973
China’s Post-1978 Economic Development and Entry into the Global Trading System
Daniel Di Martino – Why Socialism Failed in Venezuela, From Someone Who Lived It
Intro
