“The Democratic Socialists of America’s (DSA) new platform promises a world without bills. In their utopia, you’d see no rent check. No health insurance premium. No student loan repayment. No electricity bill. Life’s basics, including food, education, medicine, and transportation, would all become `common goods and utilities.'”
|
|||||
Samizdata quote of the day – why prices matter editionAugust 16th, 2026 |
 22 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – why prices matter editionLeave a Reply |
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
In a world where `common goods and utilities’ are provided without bills who will be able to judge whether or not some local bureaucrat is receiving ‘more than their fair share’?
People are sensitised to someone else getting ‘more than their fair share’. Historically wage controls have always failed because workers try to maintain their ‘differentials’. Black markets flourish when `common goods and utilities’ are scarce.
Life’s basics, including food, education, medicine, and transportation, would all become `common goods and utilities’ – and more-or-less unobtainable, except, of course, for the ‘comrades of proven worth’.
Trump’s motorcade, for all his posturing, goes down the sane streets as everbody else. It was Moscow that had Zil lanes.
llater,
llamas
“Trump’s motorcade, for all his posturing, goes down the same streets as everybody else. It was Moscow that had Zil lanes.”
Maybe, but they still tightly control traffic and when it thunders by.
And just try overtaking that motorcade or getting too close to the president’s tank of a limo when it does go down your street.
“When we labor for our common good instead of private profit, we can all have a secure and dignified life, and use our time and talents how we wish.”
If we’re all “labor[ing] for our common good” how, exactly, does that translate into “use[ing] our time and talents how we wish”?
Does anyone really “wish” to be the dude pumping out sewage systems? Does anyone really “wish” to climb up a power pole during a storm and futz with live power lines to get the lights back on? Does anyone really “wish” to drive around picking up smelly, decomposing roadkill animals and throwing them in the back of the truck?
If everyone wants to spend their time and talents sitting in their beautiful, air conditioned apartments playing games on their game consoles all day long, that’s what they can do…because that apartment and the A/C and the game console and the power to run it all just appear by magic right?
The people who buy into this BS are 6 year olds in adult bodies.
And the people who sell it to them are evil.
“The people who buy into this BS are 6 year olds in adult bodies.”
This is so true. When you are six you have no worries as Mummy and Daddy take care of everything for you. Some people just want the State to take over where their parents left off and to carry on having their arses wiped for them for life.
Of course incentives matter. If you are handed all of life’s essentials on a plate where is the incentive to work? If no one needs to go to work, who is going to provide all this state funded bounty? This stuff isn’t difficult to understand unless you are really determined not to understand it.
What about a tax bill?
Why does anyone need to work at all, if all the essential elements of life are free? Are wages needed only to pay for entertainment? If we need entertainment, then why should the people have to pay for it? Since entertainers clearly enjoy entertaining other people, they should be willing to perform without wages. Since everyone will be provided with decent housing, healthcare, transportation, clothing, and food at no cost, entertainers should not need any additional wages to purchase non-essential items.
Even according to Karl Marx there was supposed to be transitional stage of socialism, before full Communism (everyone getting free stuff “to each according to their needs”) was reached.
The DSA seem to want to go straight to Communism where, unlike the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (the Soviet Union was NOT Communist – that was aim for some point in the future), people would not have to pay for food and so on.
As for education – the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) is dominated by Frankfurt School interpretation Marxists – a philosophy that even Stalin thought too extreme.
Education under them would be DEI “Critical Theory” insanity – but then, already, at the University of Cambridge (in Britain) anyone who works there has to sign up to Diversity and Inclusion ideology (regardless of their subject – for example a mathematician has to spend their time proving their devotion to DEI Marxism and pushing) and agreeing to INFORM on anyone who has the “wrong” opinions – so they may be dealt with.
Hat tip to Professor Norman Fenton (his book “Captured Academia”) for pointing out this ideological capture. It has become general in the universities – it is NOT confined to Cambridge.
The Frankfurt School (“Critical Theory” or “DEI”) Marxism that now dominates the universities, does not stay in the universities – it leads to such things as the DSA.
Again – even Stalin thought this development of Marxist thought, this obsession with race and sex – and denial of objective truth (even in engineering) was too extreme.
Just as he thought that everyone being paid the same (“to each according to their needs”) regardless of their work – was utterly absurd.
Everything can NOT be free.
@Stonyground: “If you are handed all of life’s essentials on a plate where is the incentive to work?”
Standing behind you with a big stick, typically. Communism (specifically the “from each according to his ability” part) is slavery; a point always, of course, omitted from their propaganda.
Good points all, but I think a larger point is being missed. 1) we know what Socialism is, where and how it’s been tried, and how and why it failed every time. 2) we know there are true believers in the DSA, academia, and elsewhere who are hell bent on bringing us socialism. Let’s call it what it is: they want mass murder to get rid of people who don’t think right. That’s where it leads every single time. So arrest them now. Crush them. And their families and every school or teacher responsible for putting this evil into their heads. Before each execution, read out a 1000 word history of the evils of socialism, ending with “never again”, right before the gunshot.
I’m being a little dramatic, but my point is, who are we arguing with or scoring points with here? We all get it–I think. The socialists aren’t reading this, won’t listen, can’t be reasoned with, and won’t stop. They are asking for what’s coming.
I know this blog rarely entertains arguments for violence, but honestly, what is to be done to stop the Marxists and Islamists…besides writing blogs, talking, thinking, etc.?
SteveD
“What about a tax bill?”
The tax rules will be massively simplified.
The tax rate is 100%.
The DSA platform seems very light on explaining how the USA will move from its current system (boo!) to this socialist paradise (yay!) and how the costs will be borne. And as noted by others, the details of this “labour for the common good” are also very sketchy.
I don’t think there’s a need to shoot the socialists, just make them fill in the details.
It is certainly true that the most enthusiastic audience for this guff won’t be convinced, Unfortunately, there is a cohort who are just too idle, entitled and plain stupid to see the flaws in this guff.
Marius – how are you going to “make them” do anything?
They will not even let you speak – they will have mobs shout you down, before you can ask them to “fill in the details” of how everything can be free (“to each according to their needs”).
It will be difficult for you to explain that their ideas do not make sense – whilst a mob of them (they do not attack on their own – they attack in mobs) are beating you – or squirting acid in your face.
Remember it is “Repressive Tolerance” (Herbert Marcuse) to allow “Reactionaries” to speak – or, eventually, to allow “Reactionaries” to live. Most schools and universities now share this view.
And as the Italian Marxist Gramsci explained – people do not have to know they are serving Marxism in order to serve it, not if Ideological Hegemony is achieved.
For example, I am sure the average Corporate manager has no idea they are serving Marxism when they push “The Message” of DEI “anti” XYZ (“anti racism” and so on) – even though that is what they are doing. And if they oppose it – HR will be interested in them, for they will have “created a hostile working environment” by not obeying, and will have made leftists “feel unsafe” by not obeying them.
When Karl Marx himself was asked how his ideas would work, either the transitional stage of socialism – or the final stage of communism, he used to flippantly reply that he would not compose menus for the restaurants of the future, or he would just say that it was an “unscientific” question.
But at least he did not have a bunch of thugs beat people up, or squirt acid in their face – just for asking him a question, which would be the modern approach – and, make no mistake, Antifa (the violent thugs) and the DSA are joined-at-the-hip – Antifa are the (Marxist) DSA – that is one of the reasons they wear face masks.
By the way – a leading nation during the life time of Karl Marx was France – indeed in 1848 (when the Communist Manifesto was published) France was second only to the United Kingdom in industry.
Karl Marx was asked what economic “class” the government of Napoleon III (which ruled France till its defeat by the German powers in 1870) represented.
It was a reasonable question – after all France was a leading power, and the theory of Karl Marx said that every government represented an economic class.
But it was a very difficult question for Karl Marx – as he could not say that Napoleon III represented the “capitalists” – as industrialists in France wanted tariffs and Napoleon III was was a Free Trader. But nor could Karl Marx say that Napoleon III represented “the workers” – as, according to Marxism, only a Marxist government can represent “the workers”.
So Karl Marx said that Napoleon III represented the “lumpen proletariat” – the criminals and vagabonds, and people were amused by the “witty” reply.
But the “humour” exposed two things – firstly that the theory of Karl Marx (that all governments, at least all major governments, represented an economic class) was false – and that he (Karl Marx) KNEW his theory was false.
That the whole thing was a pretend “scientific” justification for the lust-for-power of Karl Marx and his associates.
According to Marxist “history” there is a “Feudal mode of production” with “Feudalism” not being a military and legal system – but, foundationally being an economic system based on serfdom and the open field strip system, which gives way to a “Capitalist mode of production”.
When was this “Feudal mode of production” in, say, the county of Kent? That is hardly an out of the way place – it borders Greater London and much of it (the bits that have not be destroyed) has a basically Bronze Age field system (not much Open Fields and strips) and it was not known for serfdom either.
Or, for that matter, when was the “Feudal mode of production” in Norway?
Or even France – after all Louis X got rid of almost all serfdom in the Middle Ages, nothing to do with changing “forces of production” (technology) and everything to do with changes to legal status.
Yet there are, infamously – and for a very long time, many Marxists in France – carefully ignoring the history of their own country, or substituting Marxist nonsense for the real history of France.
Both the “economics” of Marxism (the Labour Theory of Value and so on) and its “history” (its fake stage theory of history – supposedly determined by production technology) are false.
Hence the move to re-brand Marxism as “anti racism” (and so on) – in order to change the discussion.
Another point against Marxism- Germany was supposed to be the most advanced capitalist economy, so it would be the first country to be communised, and then the Russian Revolution happened. Oops!
Nicholas Gray – yes indeed.
Although Russia was not the backward place that is sometimes claimed, it was the 4th largest industrial power and did have the fastest growth rate, it was still far behind Germany.
If Marxism was true – then the most advanced capitalist economy should have gone socialist first – that would not be Germany that would have been the United States (the largest industrial power since about 1890) then Britain (per man – still more advanced than Germany), then Germany.
But none of these countries had a successful Marxist Revolution.
The “Revisionist” Marxist Bernstein did some basic research – and found that far from getting worse off (as Karl Marx – and even Cardinal Manning and Pope Leo XIII claimed) “the masses” were getting better off (better off – not worse off) – their conditions of life were improving, wages, housing, everything.
Orthodox Marxists responded by attacking him – playing the man, not the ball.
Even though Bernstein remained a “Social Reformer” – i.e. a bigger government person.
Ask them the questions, demand answers. If the answers are nonsense or dishonest, trumpet that to the voters.
As I said, some people are too lazy and bitter and stupid to see that ‘make billionaires pay for everything’ is a con, but many are not. And this is why DSA candidates are going to lose elections that Clintonian Democrats would have won.
Marius – they will not let you ask them questions, their mobs will shout you down (indeed go much further than that), and the media will not report what you say.
But I AGREE with you – we have a moral duty to try.
“It is better to have fought and lost – than not to have fought at all” – as the French television series “The Flashing Blade” used to say.
If you are looking to visit a university or other such Hell-hole (for a “debate”) – then I am happy to come with you.
I have no interest in clinging to life.
“Intellectuals are naturally seduced by the idea of a planned society, because they think they will be in charge of it.” – Roger Scruton
This sounds a lot like Universal Basic Income, a scheme that has never worked. I realize that the past should not dictate to us, but we can still learn lessons from it.