With so many young (and clueless) Americans clamoring for socialism, it’s worth asking about the likely consequences of such a move. What happens to liberty and prosperity? Will people be better off than in an unplanned, uncontrolled, market-based economy, even one that the government interferes with?
In this AIER article, Alex Tokarev, Gabriel Benzecry, and Kristin Tokarev ask, “What’s Worse — Authoritarian Capitalism or Democratic Socialism?”
After clarifying that they oppose all sorts of authoritarianism, the authors write, “Under a regime where the rule of law is replaced by the arbitrary rule of men, the economic system imposed still makes a world of difference. And the contrast is nowhere more vivid than in the struggles of Chile under Augusto Pinochet and Venezuela under Chávez and Maduro.”
It’s a useful comparison. Pinochet was a brutal ruler, but he allowed the economy of Chile to function; the people not only became increasingly prosperous but were able to rid themselves of him. In contrast, the socialist dictators in Venezuela, Chávez and Maduro, presided over a collapsing economy that led to such deprivation that millions of people fled the country.
The authors drive their point home:
Private property also creates a path to restoring other kinds of liberties. When individuals, not the government, own and control the land and the capital, it is possible to restore political freedoms. Recent research suggests that capitalism has historically been the ordinary citizens’ shield against tyrannical abuses. The study “You Have Nothing to Lose but Your Chains?” published in Public Choice shows that socialism inexorably leads to authoritarian rule and the violation of human rights. Capitalism provides the kind of opportunities that socialist regimes inevitably extinguish — including the opportunity to regain the consent of the governed after a dictatorship.
Those beating the drums for utopian socialism in America could benefit from an education in real-world consequences.