I've been in Colombia for the last three months.
Yesterday, right-wing Abelardo de la Espriella, aka "The Tiger," was sworn into office, succeeding left-wing self-proclaimed socialist Gustavo Petro.
This is what the streets of Medellín looked like when The Tiger won in June.
Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Honduras, Ecuador, Argentina, Chile, El Salvador — all of these Latin American countries had explicitly socialist, far-left, or Marxist governments that they rejected within the last three years:
Bolivia. Last October, voters ended two decades of rule by a party named the Movement Toward Socialism.
Chile. In December, voters chose José Antonio Kast over a Communist Party candidate.
Honduras. In November, they voted out the democratic socialist party of President Xiomara Castro.
Ecuador. Rejected the heirs of Rafael Correa's socialist project for the second time in two years.
El Salvador. In 2024, the party of former Marxist guerrillas that governed for a decade — during which the country became the murder capital of the world — was wiped from the legislature entirely. Zero seats.
Peru. Two weeks ago, Keiko Fujimori was sworn in after defeating a leftist who served in the cabinet of Pedro Castillo, the Marxist president Peruvians impeached and imprisoned.
Argentina. The left-wing governments that ran the country for most of two decades nationalized the oil company, the airline, and private pension funds. Inflation passed 200%. In 2023 voters elected Javier Milei, who campaigned on reversing all of that.
These movements went by different names.
Some called themselves socialists.
Some were Marxists who never used the word.
Some skipped labels entirely and just governed the same way — nationalizing industries, centralizing control.
Different branding. Same ideology: state control over the market, and wealth as something to seize and redistribute rather than create.
That's what I mean by "socialism" in this letter.
That's the worldview that the leaders of all of these countries had.
And it's what voters rejected.
It's an abstract ideology, with some variation.
I'll get more into what socialism technically is later to make things concrete.
But what wasn't abstract were the results these administrations produced: increased crime, gang violence, unchecked immigration, economic problems.
What wasn't abstract was the experience of voters who had to live with the actual results of abstract theories — and rejected them.
Meanwhile, in America — the country people fleeing socialism risk everything to reach — socialism is growing in popularity.
66% of Democrats now view socialism positively.
62% of Americans under 30 have a favorable view of socialism.
South America is moving away from socialism, after having tried it.
North America is moving toward socialism, having never tried it.
We shouldn't have to learn this lesson the hard way.
The problem with discussing socialism is that often when it's discussed, we're not all talking about the same thing.
Many of the Americans excited by socialism think it's defined by universal healthcare, affordable housing, free childcare.
That is incorrect.
Many Americans also think socialism is what Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Denmark) do.
That is also incorrect.
In the words of Denmark's own prime minister, from a talk he gave at Harvard in 2015: "Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
AKA — capitalist.
The confusion is measurable.
According to Gallup polling: in 1949, 34% of Americans defined socialism as government ownership or control of the economy, and only 2% said "benefits and services."
The 34% were correct.
By 2018, government ownership had fallen to 17% while "equality" had climbed to 23% — the single most common answer.
The word has drifted from being understood correctly as a description of how an economy operates, to a vibe about fairness.
So let's restore the definition, because clear thinking requires clear definitions.
Socialism is defined by one thing: who owns the means of production.
The "means of production" are the infrastructure used to produce goods and services — factories, land, firms, capital. Whoever owns them captures the wealth they generate.
Under capitalism, private individuals own the means of production and keep the profits.
Under socialism, that ownership is through collectives, or the government.
In practice, it's almost always the government.
That's the dividing line. Not tax rates. Not government benefits. Not wealth inequality. Not social justice.
You can have a capitalist system with high taxes, high government benefits, and low wealth inequality — that's what Scandinavian countries are.
You can also have a capitalist system with low taxes, low government benefits, and high wealth inequality — like Singapore.
Or you can have America — which is in between.
And there are socialist countries where the state controls the money, benefits are generous on paper, and inequality is low. Venezuela. Cuba.
Countries where the taxes are high, but the money doesn't actually help people.
Countries where government benefits are high on paper, but low quality in reality.
Countries where there's low wealth inequality — because everyone is poor.
Fortunately for the Latin American countries that recently rejected socialism, they cut the socialism experiment short before it wrecked them.
Some countries, like Venezuela, weren't so fortunate.
I've heard this story over and over from the many Venezuelans I've met here.
Because it turns out that there are many Venezuelans in Colombia.
Because they left Venezuela.
Because of socialism.
Venezuela, which used to be a thriving society — with a capitalist system, oil wealth, and a well-educated population — is just one of the many countries that fell victim to the false promises of socialism.
Like Colombia, which has a large population of Venezuelans looking for a better life, and now has to deal with the challenges of integrating a large foreign population fleeing socialism.
While Colombia itself suffers from the effects of guerrilla violence, which increased under Petro.
Most Americans, especially those under 30, aren't well-educated on the actual impact of socialism in history or modernity.
I've had multiple Venezuelans tell me in frustration that they see Americans who don't know anything about Venezuela standing and protesting Trump's arrest of Maduro, while those who actually lived under Maduro are thrilled to see him go.
At least everyone is equal now — equally poor.
Socialism hasn't just "not been done right."
It almost certainly can't work, because it destroys the source of wealth it seeks to redistribute.
No comments:
Post a Comment