Letter to the Editor: In Reply to McManus—Markets Are the Better Way

“Each day, I read an almost endless array of pro-socialist and anti-capitalist articles in a variety of newspapers, magazines, and web sites. Then I ask myself: ‘How could so many bright, well-informed authors be so apparently unaware of the actual realities concerning the history of socialism?'”

Editor:

According to Prof. Matt McManus, “For  most of [his] life a certain form of neoliberalism seemed the only political alternative available to us, characterized by a great deal of inequality and limited opportunities for democratic participation.” Professor McManus also opined that, “In [his] mind [the lone thing that can replace post-modern conservatism] can only be a robust social democracy, where wealth is distributed more fairly and citizens are granted opportunities to frame the laws that govern them.” Thereby, he proves yet again that hope among collectivists springs eternal.

Each day, I read an almost endless array of pro-socialist and anti-capitalist articles in a variety of newspapers, magazines, and web sites. Then I ask myself: “How could so many bright, well-informed authors be so apparently unaware of the actual realities concerning the history of socialism—and the imagined phenomenon of increasing income inequality (and wealth concentration) in the United States and around the world?”

Inexplicably, each of these collectivist writers apparently chooses to ignore the actual history of social democracy, which can be easily summarized.

Collectivism, as a Western political ideal, traces its roots to 1789 and the French Revolution. Of course, this led solely to tyranny and ultimately the guillotine. Beginning in the 1820’s, there was a wave of cooperatives (socialist experiments) formed in the United States and Europe led by men like Robert Owen, but most had failed by 1840. The average lifespan of these “co-ops” was only two years.