You’re a Socialist-American? Please Explain…

Bernie Che Shirt


I predict this coming summer will find more residents of Mid Coast Maine, where I live, wearing Bernie Sanders t-shirts than the current favorite, Che Guevara model. The women will still sport the obligatory side-crew cuts and the men ponytails, but the go-to-T-shirt will change for the first time in decades!

It’s also logical to assume that, had Che not been executed in 1967 at the age of thirty-nine, he might very well be making campaign appearances on Mr. Sanders’ behalf today, even in his late eighties. They might at least be spotted fighting over the breakfast tab at a diner.

My first encounter with the trappings of socialism,Jack London Onboard Snark outside of history class, came from reading a biography of Jack London, a writer I’ve long admired. Remembered for his more than fifty books, and the famous short-story, “To Build a Fire”, most who read London, be it by choice or by assignment, remain unaware of the notoriety that contemporaneously followed London and his strong commitment to building a global, socialist society.

A prolific propagandist for the international cause, London laid out the goals of socialism in a 1908 article titled, Revolution:

We are revolutionists. The cry of this army is, ‘No quarter! We want all that you possess. We will be content with nothing less than all that you possess. We want in our hands the reins of power and the destiny of mankind. Here are our hands. They are strong hands. We are going to take your governments, your palaces, and all your purpled ease away from you, and in that day you shall work for your bread even as the peasant in the field or the starved and runty clerk in your metropolises. Here are our hands. They are strong hands’.

London Socialist WritingsWho doesn’t love Jack London’s delivery? That incendiary prose sure does make one Feel the Bern! Say what you want about political and economic theories of social organization, but that’s good agitprop there. London’s pro-socialist writings have survived to inspire generations of aspiring commies since Bernie Sanders was crawling around in red diapers.


Interestingly, as one of the world’s first internationally successful and subsequently wealthy fiction writers, London, while barely thirty-years old, had already retired to his 1,000 acre California ranch to live out his years safe from the evils of capitalism. The “Boy Socialist,” as he was once known, had grown bored of all the social activism, opting instead for a life of rugged, though lavish adventures, and cranking out a few more books, “for no other reason than to add three or four hundred acres to my magnificent estate.” London died at the age of forty, his estate appropriately being turned over to the government for the creation of a state park and national historic landmark.

Jack London State Park

So, how is it that an icon of American strength such as Jack London, the very figure of the wild frontier and rugged individualism who gave us White Fang and The Sea-Wolf, a man who was living proof that hard work and perseverance can reap enormous financial rewards, became the most eloquentTo Build a Fire spokesman for an economic system based upon community ownership of the means of production, onerous governmental regulation, constrained liberties and culturally-crafted equality?

It could be that London attended the University of California at Berkeley, but with the Free Speech Movement still more than sixty years away in 1897, Berkeley was hardly considered the bellwether of radicalism that it has since become. In fact, when young Jack London enrolled in UC Berzerkeley, military training was still required for all male undergraduates. Rather, his close association with Eugene Debs, who was then running as a socialist candidate for mayor of Oakland, seems to have been the major influence in the teen-ager’s burgeoning love for socialism.

The problem, of course, is that everything about the socialist economic system is diametrically opposed to the economic theories that served as the underpinnings for the development of the American nation, and the ideals that are outlined in that most important of our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence. Socialism would have prevented Jack London from acquiring his beloved Beauty Ranch.

Adam Smith, widely considered the founder of free market economic theory, cited the American Colonies as a fine example of the benefits of such a system. Young America grew the world’s largest and most vibrant economy within a century of its birth, and has remained the world’s strongest economy ever since. Outperforming the economies of nations that had centuries-long head starts, America did not achieve her greatness, her ability to protect and create life, liberty and happiness both at home and abroad throughout our 240-year history by employing a socialist economic system.

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks at the Iowa at the Iowa State Fair Saturday, Aug. 15, 2015, in Des Moines. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks at the Iowa at the Iowa State Fair Saturday, Aug. 15, 2015, in Des Moines. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

Recent polling suggests that fully a third of millenials, and over 40% of registered Democrats hold a favorable opinion of socialism. Our union-controlled public school system, in teaching our future electorate about the country they pledge allegiance to, has failed to delineate between American values and European values. This has left many young voters with the perception that, by voting for an avowed socialist like Bernie Sanders, or adopting socialist policies and programs such as local, state and our own federal government has been doing for decades, we are merely embracing economic policies that are already being used by European countries. Sanders Socialism is a Softer, Kinder Socialism. No big deal, dude… don’t get so gnarly!

Except that it is a big deal. I’m no economist, but even I understand that socialism is incompatible with the American ideal. Liberty and Socialism are mutually exclusive concepts, and there is no bridging the gap. Don’t take my word for it. alexisdetocquevilleOne of the more astute and prescient observers of the American experiment was French historian Alexis de Tocqueville. A passionate defender of liberty, Tocqueville spoke in great detail of his misgivings about socialism in an address before France’s Constituent Assembly following the 1848 revolution:

A trait which, in my eyes, best describes socialists of all schools and shades, is a profound opposition to personal liberty and scorn for individual reason, a complete contempt for the individual. They unceasingly attempt to mutilate, to curtail, to obstruct personal freedom in any and all ways. They hold that the State must not only act as the director of society, but must further be master of each man, and not only master, but keeper and trainer. For fear of allowing him to err, the State must place itself forever by his side, above him, around him, better to guide him, to maintain him, in a word, to confine him. They call, in fact, for the forfeiture, to a greater or less degree, of human liberty, to the point where, were I to attempt to sum up what socialism is, I would say that it was simply a new system of serfdom.

Socialist Party LogoRecall the words Jack London used to describe the goals of socialism: “We will be content with nothing less than all that you possess. We want in our hands the reins of power and the destiny of mankind. Here are our hands.”

Observing the rising popularity of Bernie Sanders, and the net effect his success has had in pushing the rhetoric of his opponent farther left, can have a disillusioning impact on the casual observer of American history. Why are so many Americans rooting for a fundamentally anti-American form of governance? It’s not unlike if the Catholic Church were to reach out to Atheist Alliance International seeking advice on how to save more souls. The advice would not be helpful to the cause.

Perhaps it’s inevitable that this grand experiment we call The United States of America come to an end, or, at least a “fundamental transformation.” Seasons come and go, climates change, history unfolds, and nations rise and fall. Tocqueville had another observation about human nature that may have presaged this coming election, if not the last two: “But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom.”



5 thoughts on “You’re a Socialist-American? Please Explain…

  1. First off, thanks for all the Jack London info. I’ve only read and loved his fiction, and didn’t know much about him as a person. I think the meanings of political labels change over time. Certainly during the Cold War (my childhood) socialism was a synonym for communism. I mean it was part of Russia’s official name! But a number of countries adopted aspects of socialism during the 1930s. Scandinavia, The Netherlands, Iceland and most of Europe adopted universal health care and (heavily taxed) free education and other services. We adopted Social Security, the VA care system, and later, Medicare and Medicaid. In the decades since the end of WW2, the “more socialist” Republics and Democracies have increased their life expectancy and overall health outcomes, and bested our education scores. They pay more tax, and also get more value in return. And they generally are regarded as having as much or MORE individual freedoms than we do. Socialism doesn’t mean what it used to any more.

    1. Thanks for reading and commenting, Invisible Mikey! The debate about whether government-provided services in the areas of health care, education, and others provide more value in return for higher taxes will not be won or lost in this comment section. While public perceptions, or media projections of what socialism is and/or was may have changed, the foundational premise that it requires state-control over means of production has not. Words still have original meanings, despite what temporal applications we may have in mind for them. And, last I checked, the content and concepts of the Declaration of Independence have remained intact lo these 240 years. Handing over more than half of ones earnings at gunpoint does not sound like more individual freedom, to me at least. Your mileage may vary! Cheers, -TD

    2. One thing that lets their brand of socialism work in the Scandinavian countries is that they are relatively small, and with a homogeneous population. It’s most certainly not working in Venezuela. I doubt it would work here because we are not small, not homogeneous, and have lived for about 200 years under the banners of liberty and capitalism.
      The only way it can be brought here is by force. (See Sinclair Lewis’ “It Can’t Happen Here”;)

      1. The amount of savings under a single-payer system increases with the size of a patient population, and the UK, France, Germany and Australia (who all have combos of single-payer plus options for private supplemental) are not homogenous populations.

        I do agree that the resistance to the idea is because we haven’t tried it here. The idea that liberty is impacted is also debatable. If people are less free to live because illness and injury can bankrupt families, which system really represents liberty?

  2. Socialism has not changed; it has never worked; and Sweden and Denmark are no longer socialist nations.

    Read Johan Norberg’s recent book “Progress” — he tells how Sweden adopted socialism for about 20 years from 1970-1990 and it almost broke them. Then new leaders were elected and they escaped socialism.

    Do not confuse social services with socialism. The latter involves bureaucrats dictating to the business world what to do and how to do it. Social services involve government bureaucrats providing aid to needy citizens.

    The Scandinavian nations maintain capitalism but with very extensive welfare programs. What is supposed to be a “safety-net” is a heavily managed savings/benefits program by the State. That may be helpful to those who cannot save and invest for themselves but it has a cost. The tax burden to support the payments are so heavy that citizens “enjoy” a lower standard of living and a lower average disposable income than the nations with lower welfare plans.

...or forever hold your Peace...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s