As a run-up to the 2020 elections, Democratic presidential
candidates have, once more, been vigorously touting their socialist agendas, both overtly
and covertly. These demagogues pedal their never-ending Utopian pipe-dream of a classless
society where all people are equal, regardless of mental, physical, and aspirational
abilities, where there is no pay inequality, where everyone is handed whatever they
desire by a government with inexhaustible financial means and where individual taxes
are so low as to be inconsequential. These socialists promise a world with no rich,
no poor, and no worries. Ah, if only!
Liberals keep trying to resurrect their Utopian dream of that
heaven on earth where everyone gets free handouts, no one has to work - unless he gets
bored with all his leisure time - and Kumbaya becomes the national anthem. What these
visionaries keep ignoring is the numerous times that their socialistic vision has proven
to be an utter failure. They simply can’t believe the obvious fact that American style
capitalism has proven to be the greatest success story in the history of the world.
For all its supposed imperfections, no other economic system has worked as well,
benefitted as many, and improved the quality of life as has the American system of
capitalism, coupled with America’s form of democratic government.
“Socialism is the Big Lie of the Twentieth century. While it
promised prosperity, equality, and security, it delivered poverty, misery, and tyranny.
Equality was achieved only in the sense that everyone was equal in his or her misery.”
“Socialism has been floating around for 188 years,
since 1830, and not once in that time has it led to a successful society. Aspects of
it have been implemented in normal societies and its influence in putting the social
welfare of workers on the agenda is important.
“As an overall idea, though, it has been a disaster, as nearly
every country to have tried it has ended up with the goose-step and the concentration
camp.” (Ref. 2)
There are innumerable illustrations of the truth in what has
just been said. So, “What’s socialism?
“Is it the centrally planned economies of Cuba and North Korea?
Or the kleptocracies of Zimbabwe and Venezuela?
“How about the interventionist welfare states of Greece, Italy,
and France? Or the redistribution-oriented Nordic nations?
“Since socialism means different things to different people,
the answers will be all over the map.
“But there’s one constant. However it’s defined, it
doesn’t work. [Emphasis mine] (Ref. 3)
Veronique de Rugy, a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus
Center at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist, recently had
the following to say about the socialist approach to most problems – taking money from
the most productive segments of society and throwing it at the least productive – as a
means to “correct” the “unfair” distribution of wealth.
“Does capitalism help or hurt women? I recently participated
in a debate on the topic at the Cato Institute. While preparing for the event, I learned
many fascinating facts that may interest feminists who claim the best way to help
American women is for the U.S. government to do what other governments have done:
spend a lot of money on so-called ‘pro-family’ programs.
“Consider Nordic governments, often praised by modern feminists
and socialists alike, as models America should emulate.
“It’s certainly true that, for years, these countries have been
hailed for being at the forefront of gender equality with programs such as paid family
leave for both men and women and generous child care handouts to help women balance home
life with work life. The policies are also supposed to help slay that favorite leftist
unicorn — the ‘pay gap’ — and elevate women to positions of power traditionally occupied
by men. These entitlements certainly look fantastic on global gender equality indexes.
“While it’s true that Nordic women participate in the labor force
at higher rates than women in other countries, academic studies show that higher taxes on
labor income — which are used to fund these generous policies — encourage women to work not
full time, but part time. More generally, higher tax rates reduce the amount of time women
work and increase the amount of time they spend doing unpaid household work. A Cato
Institute study on ‘The Nordic Glass Ceiling,’ by Nima Sanandaji, explains that ‘Nordic
professors and other workers are more inclined than their lower-taxed American counterparts
to devote unpaid time to domestic work rather than work longer hours in their paid work.’
“Studies by the European Commission and others find that
broad-based welfare policies also create incentives for women to work part time rather
than full time. Ironically, paid maternity leave policies make working fewer
hours more attractive relative to working full time, which in turn hinders women’s
abilities to reach the top executive positions. [Emphasis mine]
“This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in Scandinavian
countries where the benefits are more generous. For instance, while the share of female
managers is 43% in the United States, it’s 28% in Denmark, 30% in Finland, 32% in Norway,
and 36% in Sweden. These countries also have, relative to other developed nations,
very low rates of women working in science, technology, engineering and mathematics
“Now let’s look at the impact that generous pro-family benefits
have on the gender pay gap:
“When measured properly, the pay gap in the United States is small.
It certainly isn’t the 19 cents per dollar often advertised by the left, including some
Democratic presidential candidates.
“The work of Harvard economist Claudia Goldin demonstrates that
this gap has almost nothing to do with discrimination. Instead, it has to do with what
Goldin calls the need for ‘temporal flexibility.’ That is, women choose to work in positions
that allow them the flexibility to take care of their children. What little there
is in the way of a pay gap reflects women’s choices and not employers’ discrimination.
“This ‘earning’ rather than ‘wage’ pay gap is driven by women
choosing to be moms, and it exists in every country, including Scandinavian ones. In fact,
economic studies show that this gap is as big or larger in European countries with huge
amounts of social spending.
“The lesson here is that we should not justify social policies
like mandated paid leave and generous child care benefits with the idea that they will
close this gap, because they won’t. American feminists should also be careful what they
wish for: More generous policies might bring more women into the workforce, but they
could also hinder women’s rise in the workplace by incentivizing them to work part time
and, as a result, never make it to the top.” (Ref. 4)
The Democratic Party here at the end of the second decade of
the twenty-first century has assumed, more and more, the aspect of a full-blown socialist
political party. We see the following left-leaning Democrats in Congress and in the run
for the presidential nomination for president in 2020: Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ver.),
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Rep. Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s
“squad” that includes freshmen Representatives Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Rashida Tlaib
(Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (Minn.). Could socialism be coming to America?
“Hugo Chavez famously said, ‘The only way to save the world
is through socialism, but a socialism that exists within a democracy; there’s no
“The American political right and center have been trying to
feverishly tie democratic socialism to the ongoing failure of the Venezuelan state.
American advocates of democratic socialism insist Venezuela isn’t a true representation
of democratic socialism and that more palatable Nordic outcomes can be achieved. However,
a closer look at the policy stances of American democratic socialists reveals some very
concerning parallels between their policy preferences and those of the currently failing
“In the beginning, Venezuelan socialists won power in fair,
open, and democratic elections. This is important to note because American socialists
are convinced democratic norms are sufficient protections against tyranny. They are not.
“Democratic elections in Venezuela were slowly corrupted by
those in power for the sole purpose of preserving authority. Many in America decry the
role of private money in our electoral process, yet ignore the potential dangers of a
centralized government-run electoral system.
“It’s foolish to disregard the fact that democratic
institutions are vulnerable. . .
“The idea that our current distrust in the electoral process
can’t be exploited by a demagogue is wishful thinking. The democratic process is fragile.
This is why the United States is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy.
- - -
“The Venezuelan constitution originally embodied the
separation of powers. However, socialist leadership saw the document as too
restrictive. In response, they blurred the lines, effectively ridding the country
of checks and balances, to drastically hinder any opposition to the socialist agenda.
“American socialists are already advocating for subverting
constitutional norms. They seek to end the Electoral College and are promoting the
same court-packing schemes employed by the dictators Chavez and Nicolas Maduro.
American socialists even go as far as to suggest abolishing the Senate. These are
all efforts to severely weaken potential conservative or moderate opposition.
“American democratic socialists don’t even pay lip service
to constitutional norms. . .
“In the eyes of the American socialists, the Constitution
is an obstacle to the ‘people’s’ revolution that cannot stand. . .
“Venezuela was once a prosperous nation. Socialists ruined it.
Income and wealth redistribution was just the start. Price controls on wages, rent, food,
and gas have devastated the country. The nationalization of several industries
increased the presence of ultra-inefficient state-owned enterprises. All these
have exacerbated massive shortages.
"Once It’s Okay to Steal From the Rich, It’s Okay to Steal
“America is a prosperous nation, and in large part because
our mixed-market approach has generally limited socialist interventions.
Although we already employ some income redistribution, American socialists
plan to dramatically expand it. They have called for a massive government
reorganization of the economy via the Green New deal and the total nationalization
of health care and utilities. [Emphasis mine]
“This command-and-control-style economic planning is
disturbingly close to that of the failed USSR and the currently collapsing
Venezuela state. American socialists have been shameless advocates of price
controls and there’s no reason to believe their disregard of basic economics
would end at housing and wage controls.
- - -
“In Nordic socialism, the government doesn’t impose wage
controls. It embraces free trade and has a low corporate tax and minimal regulatory
regime. The Nordics view capitalism as essential to creating income and wealth to
redistribute. American socialists see capitalism as a system of rampant exploitation
that needs extensive restrictions, if not outright abolition. These fundamental
differences place American socialists in a firm alignment with the failed models of
socialism that have been relegated to the trash bins of world history.
"Democratic Socialists Don’t Actually Like Democracy
"The most influential American democratic socialists have
an extensive history of defending regimes that were anything but democratic. There
are a lot of big names among the apologists who form the thought leadership in
democratic socialist circles. Bernie Sanders praised food shortages. He also
defended dictator Fidel Castro and Cuba’s horrific medical system.
“Noam Chomsky, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
linguist who moonlights as an economic development specialist, met with Chavez to
praise the Venezuelan dictator for his work on poverty reduction and equality. He
openly trashed American capitalism and has yet to fully repent for being blatantly
wrong about his infatuation with the authoritarian regime.
- - -
“. . . The current leadership of American democratic
socialism has learned absolutely nothing from failed states. They have no interest
in noting the differences between the various failed socialist states and the
oft-cited Nordic models. In their heads, failed socialist states can be explained
by: blaming U.S. foreign policy, a stubborn attachment to the no true Scotsman
fallacy, a fairly naive view of democracy, or a mixture of the aforementioned.
- - -
“Denying the failures of socialism is the keystone
underpinning the role of useful idiots in spreading a defunct ideology. Imagine
the scoffs and laughs that would follow the assertion that market failure doesn’t
apply to true capitalism. Yet the socialist elites make such foolhardy defenses
of failed socialist models with straight faces.
- - -
The new-age millennial socialists believe the European
economic policy is superior to American norms with easily transferable properties.
This is naive and dangerous. European GDP performance is dismal in comparison to
America’s . . .
- - -
“As the popularity of democratic socialism grows, it’s
important to remember that the only real difference between democratic socialism
and regular old socialism is a phenomenal rebranding effort. There is ample reason
to believe that, if left unchecked, American socialism would produce the same
outcomes that ravaged Venezuela.” (Ref. 5)
The socialist Pied Pipers lead the uninitiated down
the primrose path. “Programs like socialized medicine, welfare, Social Security,
and minimum wage laws will continue to entice us because on the surface they
appear to be expedient and beneficial. Those programs, like all socialist programs,
will fail in the long run regardless of initial appearances. These programs are part
of the Big Lie of socialism . . .
- - -
“The main difference between capitalism and
socialism is this: Capitalism works.” [Emphasis mine]
America’s success has been built upon entrepreneurship
and rugged individualism. American capitalism seeks and rewards the best and brightest
in its ranks. Socialism’s failure has resulted from its stifling of entrepreneurship
and its squashing of all that smacks of individualism. Socialism is focused on total
equality which, of necessity, requires that in order for all to be equal, all must
assume the abilities and aspirations of the lowest common denominator in the
socialist system. The best and brightest in such a system must be stifled,
lest the inequality among humans becomes too obvious. Socialism demands that
the “rich” give their wealth to the poor. Socialism requires that there be no
“top one percent.” To be the ideal socialist, one must always be at the fifty
Socialists constantly offer the fallacy that if one
only gives up a little of one’s freedom, socialism will provide one with a
little more security. As experience has constantly demonstrated, the bargain
may be a tempting one, but it never pays off. Under socialism, people invariably
end up losing both their freedom and their security.
Socialists abhor the accumulation of money which supposedly only
benefits the filthy rich who care nothing for the starving unwashed masses. Their first act
upon assuming power is to take all money out of the hands of the “wealthy”. All-too-often,
much of this “wealth” ends up in the hands of the socialist elite. Today, many of our liberal
elite closet socialists – including several Democratic presidential hopefuls – propose
confiscating the money of the “rich” through a “wealth tax”.
“A wealth tax would mean less wealth to tax. Taxing the mere
possession of property and securities, by definition, makes them less valuable. Many people
would have to sell assets to pay for the tax on what they own.
“The value of an asset, especially a financial one, can be heavily
influenced by the health of the economy. The radical tax and regulatory schemes (regulations
are a form of taxation that today costs us nearly $2 trillion, which is more than the GDP of
all but a handful of countries) proffered by the Democrats would slow the economy to a crawl.
This, in turn, would cause tax revenues to fall far below expectations. Despite thousands of
years of experience, these political hacks cavalierly assume that costly, burdensome rules
and higher taxes don’t affect people’s ability to do business.
“Wealth taxes would be an unprecedented assault on people’s
privacy . . . Government bureaucrats would have the right to demand lists of all your
assets—as well as the right to examine your home, storage facilities, brokerage accounts,
bank accounts and everything else—to determine if you have crossed the wealth-tax threshold.
They would, at a click, have—for the same purpose—access to the records of everything you have
bought or sold.”
“This is the road to serfdom.” [Emphasis mine]
A wealth tax is but another step down the road
to eliminate historically successful capitalism and replace it with historically failed
I ran across an interesting piece about socialism entitled These 3
Countries Tried Socialism. Here’s What Happened. (Ref. 8).
I recommend reading the article in its entirety, but have summarized it below with my personal
Socialists are fond of saying that socialism has never failed
because it has never been tried. But in truth, socialism has failed in every country in
which it has been tried, from the Soviet Union beginning a century ago to three modern
countries that tried but ultimately rejected socialism—Israel, India, and the United Kingdom.
While there were major political differences between the totalitarian
rule of the Soviets and the democratic politics of Israel, India, and the U.K., all three of
the latter countries adhered to socialist principles, nationalizing their major industries and
placing economic decision-making in the hands of the government.
The Soviet failure has been well documented by historians. In 1985,
General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev took command of a bankrupt disintegrating empire. After
70 years of Marxism, Soviet farms were unable to feed the people, factories failed to meet
their quotas, and people lined up for blocks in Moscow and other cities to buy bread and
And yet, socialism still beguiled leading intellectuals and
politicians of the West. They could not resist its siren song, of a world without strife
because it was a world without private property. They were convinced that a bureaucracy
could make more-informed decisions about the welfare of a people than the people themselves
could. They blindly believed, with John Maynard Keynes, that “the state is wise and the market
Israel, India, and the United Kingdom all adopted socialism as an
economic model following World War II. India resolved to constitute into a Sovereign
Socialist Secular Democratic Republic. The original settlers of Israel were East European
Jews of the left who sought and built a socialist society. As soon as the guns of World War
II fell silent, Britain’s Labour Party nationalized every major industry and acceded to every
socialist demand of the unions.
At first, socialism seemed to work in these vastly dissimilar
countries. But the government planners were
unable to keep pace with increasing population and overseas competition. After decades of
ever-declining economic growth and ever-rising unemployment, all three countries abandoned
socialism and turned toward capitalism and the free market.
The resulting prosperity in Israel, India, and the U.K. vindicated
free-marketers who had predicted that socialism would inevitably fail to deliver the goods.
As British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher observed, “the problem with socialism is
that you eventually run out of other people’s money. ”
Israel: Israel is unique in that it is
the only nation where socialism was successful — for a while.
The original settlers “sought to create an economy in which market
forces were controlled for the benefit of the whole society.” Driven by a desire to leave
behind their history as victims of penury and prejudice, they sought an egalitarian,
labor-oriented socialist society. Most early settlers worked either on collective farms
called kibbutzim or in state-guaranteed jobs. The kibbutzim were small farming communities
in which people did chores in exchange for food and money to live on and pay their bills.
There was no private property, people ate in common, and children under 18 lived together
and not with their parents. Any money earned on the outside was given to the kibbutz.
The socialist Labor party effectively ruled the country from
Israel’s founding in 1948 until 1973 and the Yom Kippur War. In the early years, few asked
whether any limits should be placed on the role of government. But, the Israeli “economic
miracle” evaporated in 1965 when the country suffered its first major recession. Economic
growth halted and unemployment rose threefold from 1965 to 1967. After 1967, the economy
revived but government-led economic growth was accompanied by accelerating inflation,
reaching an annual rate of 17% from 1971 to 1973.
For the first time in Israel, there was a public debate between
supporters of free-enterprise economics and supporters of traditional socialist arrangements.
The 1977 elections resulted in the victory of the Likud party, with its staunch pro-free-market
philosophy. Because socialism’s roots in Israel were so deep, real reform proceeded slowly.
Meanwhile, the government kept borrowing and spending and driving up inflation, which
averaged 77% for 1978-79 and reached a peak of 450% in 1984–85. The government’s share of
the economy grew to 76%, while fiscal deficits and national debt skyrocketed.
Finally, in January 1983, the bubble burst, and thousands of
private citizens and businesses as well as government-run enterprises faced bankruptcy.
Israel was close to collapse. At this critical moment, a sympathetic U.S. president,
Ronald Reagan, and his secretary of state, George Shultz, came to the rescue. They
offered a grant of $1.5 billion if the Israeli government agreed to abandon its socialist
rulebook and adopt some form of U.S.-style capitalism.
The impact of a basic shift in Israeli economic policy was
immediate and pervasive. Within a year, inflation tumbled from 450% to just 20%, and
the budget deficit of 15% of GDP shrank to zero. The socialist rhetoric and ideology
“had been permanently retired.”
After modest expansion in the 1990s, Israel’s economic growth
topped the charts in the developing world in the 2000s. Israel’s political parties are
agreed that there is no turning back to the economic policies of the early years.
“The world’s most successful experiment in socialism appears to have resolutely
embraced capitalism. ”
India: In the case of India,
acceptance of socialism was strong long
before independence. Jawaharlal Nehru adopted socialism as the ruling ideology when he
became India’s first prime minister after independence in 1947 and, for nearly 30 years,
the Indian government adhered to a socialist line, restricting imports, prohibiting
foreign direct investment, protecting small companies from competition from large
corporations, and maintaining price controls on a wide variety of industries including
steel, cement, fertilizers, petroleum, and pharmaceuticals. Any producer who exceeded
their licensed capacity faced possible imprisonment.
“India was perhaps the only country in the world where
improving productivity … was a crime.” It was a strict application of the socialist
principle that the market cannot be trusted to produce good economic or social outcomes.
Economic inequality was regulated through taxes—the top personal income tax rate hit a
Some 14 public banks were nationalized in 1969; six more banks
were taken over by the government in 1980. It was the “zenith” of Indian socialism, which
still failed to satisfy the basic needs of an ever-expanding population. In 1977-78, more
than half of India was living below the poverty line.
Economic performance from 1965 to 1981 was worse than at any
other time of the post-independence period. As in Israel, economic reform became an
imperative. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had pushed her policy agenda as far to the left
as possible. In 1980, the Congress party won a two-thirds majority in the Parliament, and
Gandhi adopted, at last, a more pragmatic, non-ideological course. But as with everything
else in India, economic reform proceeded slowly.
An industrial-policy statement continued the piecemeal retreat
from socialism that had begun in 1975, allowing companies to expand their capacity,
encouraging investment in a wide variety of industries, and introducing private-sector
participation in telecommunications. Further liberalization received a major boost under
Rajiv Gandhi and GDP growth reached an encouraging 5.5%.
With the spread of capitalism, India overtook Germany in 2017 to
become the fourth-largest auto market in the world, and it is expected to displace Japan
in 2020. That same year, India overtook the U.S. in smartphone sales to become the
second-largest smartphone market in the world. Never before in recorded history have so
many people risen so quickly.
All this has been accomplished because the political
leaders of India sought and adopted a better economic system—free enterprise—after some
four decades of fitful progress and unequal prosperity under socialism.
The United Kingdom: Widely described
as “the sick man of Europe” after three decades
of socialism, the United Kingdom underwent an economic revolution in the 1970s and 1980s.
Under its system of socialism, the British government owned the largest manufacturing firms
in such industries as autos and steel. The top individual tax rates were 83% on “earned
income” and a crushing 98% on income from capital. Much of the housing was
As in most socialistic regimes, a major hindrance to economic
reform was the powerful trade unions, which since 1913 had been allowed to spend union
funds on political objectives, such as controlling the Labour Party. Unions inhibited
productivity and discouraged investment.
From 1950 to 1975, the U.K.’s investment and productivity record
was the worst of any major industrial country. Trade union demands increased the size of
the public sector and public expenditures to 59% of GDP. Wage and benefits demands by
organized labor led to continual strikes that paralyzed transportation and production.
In1979, newly elected Conservative Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher took on the labor unions. As a result, union membership plummeted from a peak of
12 million in the late 1970s to half that by the late 1980s.The top rate of personal income
tax was cut in half, to 45%, and exchange controls were abolished. Moving from socialism to
capitalism, a core Thatcher reform was privatization. Not only was it fundamental to the
improvement of the economy, it was “one of the central means of reversing the corrosive and
corrupting effects of socialism,” Thatcher wrote in her memoirs.
With the discarding of socialistic policies, Government-owned
airlines, airports, utilities, and phone, steel, and oil companies were sold off. In the
1980’s, Britain’s economy grew faster than that of any other European economy except Spain.
U.K. business investment grew faster than in any other country except Japan. Productivity
grew faster than in any other industrial economy. Some 3.3 million new jobs were created
between March 1983 and March 1990. Inflation fell from a high of 27% in 1975 to 2.5% in 1986.
From 1981 to 1989, under a Conservative government, real GDP growth averaged 3.2%.
China: There is still one more lesson to be learned about socialism and
capitalism – that of China.
From 1949 to 1976, under Mao Zedong, China was an economic basket
case, owing to Mao’s personal mismanagement of the economy. In his avid pursuit of
Soviet-style socialism, Mao brought about the Great Leap Forward of 1958-60, which resulted
in the deaths of at least 30 million and perhaps as many as 50 million Chinese, and the
Cultural Revolution of 1966-76, in which an additional 3 million to 5 million died. Mao
left China backward and deeply divided.
Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping, turned China in a different
direction, seeking to create a mixed economy in which capitalism and socialism would
coexist with the Communist Party monitoring and constantly adjusting the proper mix.
For the past four decades, China has been the economic marvel of the world.
China now permits foreign investors to buy into Chinese companies,
but the government—i.e., the Communist Party—always retains a majority interest. It
operates an estimated 150,000 state-owned enterprises that guarantee jobs for tens of
millions of Chinese. It depends on the energy and experience of the most entrepreneurial
people in the world, second only to Americans.
In short, the People’s Republic of China was an economic
failure for its first three decades under Mao and Soviet socialism. It began its climb to
become the second-largest economy in the world when it abandoned socialism in the late 70s
and initiated its experiment in the Chinese version of capitalism , which so far
has been successful.
As we have seen from our examination of Israel, India, the
United Kingdom and China, the economic system that works best for the greatest number is not socialism
with its central controls, utopian promises, and OPM (other people’s money), but the
free-market system with its emphasis on competition and entrepreneurship. All
four countries tried socialism for decades, and all four finally rejected it for the
simplest of reasons — it doesn’t work.
Socialism is guilty of a fatal conceit: It believes its system can
make better decisions for the people than they can for themselves.
Israel’s socialist miracle turned out to be a mirage, India
discarded socialist ideology and chose a more market-oriented path, and the United
Kingdom set an example for the rest of the world with its emphasis on privatization and
deregulation. Whether we are talking about the actions of an agricultural country of 1.3
billion, or the nation that sparked the industrial revolution, or a small Middle Eastern
country populated by some of the smartest people in the world, capitalism tops
socialism every time.
- Why Socialism Failed, Mark J. Perry, FOUNDATION for ECONOMIC
EDUCATION, 31 May 1995.
- The Failure of Socialism- Bernie’s Legacy, themillennialdemocrats.com,
8 July 2018.
- Socialism: A Track Record of Failure, Dan Mitchell,
danieljmitchell.wordpress.com, 14 April 2019.
- ‘Pro-family’ programs won’t shrink pay gap, Veronique de Rugy,
Boston Herald, Page 17, 23 September 2019.
- U.S. Democratic Socialists’ Political Agenda Looks A Lot Like Venezuela’s,
Raheem Williams, The Federalist,
8 May 2019.
- Wealth: The Democrats Don’t Get It, Steve Forbes, Forbes,
Pg. 21, 31 October 2019.
- Truths About European Paradises, Steve Forbes, Forbes,
Pges 21-22, 31 October 2019.
- These 3 Countries Tried Socialism. Here’s What Happened., Lee Edwards,
The Daily Signal, 16 October 2019.