Clifford D. May wrote a strange column in
which he criticized Socialism without explaining the economic theory behind it
or the financial system that powers it. Weird.
The title of the column is: “Socialism
rises from the grave,” which also came under the subtitle: “A one-time believer
examines man's most ambitious attempt to rival and supplant religious faith.”
It was published on June 4, 2019 in The Washington Times.
Aside from his observations with regard to
the current political scenes in both America and Britain, Clifford May has
relied almost entirely on a book that was published by the “one-time believer,”
Joshua Muravchik –– to compose his argument. He begins the discussion by asserting
that “socialism had taken many forms throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, the
Middle East and Latin America [and] failed … but like a zombie in a horror
movie, it rose from the grave”.
May expresses the fear that the
self-declared socialists, Jeremy Corbyn that heads the Labor party in Britain,
and Bernie Sanders who is among the leading candidates running to be president
of the United States –– have a chance, however small it may be, to get elected.
To show that this would be a bad idea, Clifford May played his trump card. It
went like this: “Both politicians have praised the Soviet Union, Cuba,
Nicaragua, and neither has been distressed by the impact socialism has had on
Venezuela, which possesses large oil reserves, and where the population lives in
poverty”.
Well then, this would have been the right
moment for Clifford May to explain in depth what socialism represents as an
economic theory and a financial system, and why it has failed in all those
places, especially in Venezuela, which is so much in the news these days. But
our author did none of that … though he hinted inadvertently as to what it
might be.
In fact, Clifford May did so when he
mentioned that Sanders supported the late president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez,
and that Corbyn eulogized him when he died “for showing that the poor matter
and wealth can be shared.” So that's it then; we are to understand that
socialist economics takes care of the poor, and that the financial system to
which it adheres, is based on sharing the wealth.
What May has failed to do, however, was to
show how that system has led to the failure of the Soviet Union, Cuba and
Nicaragua, not to mention Venezuela which sits on a massive reserve of oil
wealth. Instead of doing that, Clifford May brought out the fact that Muravchik,
who wrote the book that inspired the column, grew up socialist but turned
against it when he studied history and discovered that socialism had become a
kind of religion that led to horror.
It all started with the French Revolution
that served as the crucible of socialism, according to Muravchik, but the
experiment culminated in the Napoleonic bloodbath. From there, it went on to
become the Marxism that created famine throughout the land, as well as the
deprivation of the labor camps. This was followed by Fascism and Nazism whose
bloody history escapes no one's attention, according to Muravchik and May.
But how to explain some apparently
successful stories which are based on socialist philosophy?
Take China for example. Clifford May says
it has developed a “socialist market economy that permits entrepreneurship and
private ownership.” This made it possible for China to create wealth, he goes
on to say. But then, he dismisses the achievement by claiming that China's
distribution of the wealth is among the most unequal in the world. It is a good
thing he did not say that it is singularly the most unequal because then, his
argument would have been rejected outright.
The reality is that the world is going
through a period known as globalization during which the rich are getting
richer fast, and the poor are not catching up as fast, though they are doing
better than ever before. Of all the people that were lifted out of poverty and
allowed to join the middle class, the Chinese have been the luckiest. Thus,
anyone that dismisses half a billion people going from abject poverty to a
decent level of living, ought to take a course in perspective. If there isn't
such a course, there ought to be one.
Aside from China, Clifford May has
mentioned the Nordic countries. He falsely claimed they experimented with
socialism that didn't work, so they returned to capitalism and created the
wealth which they used to implement the socialist system that socialism had
failed to produce. What? Run that by me again, Cliff!
In any case, the writer went on to say,
that socialism isn't what Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders have in mind.