Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
How ‘democratic socialism’ disempowers minorities
How ‘democratic socialism’ disempowers minorities
Mar 18, 2025 11:28 AM

Progressives are known for their blanket denunciations of “big business” and consolidated corporate power. Yet amid their sweeping disdain, such critics somehow manage to maintain a peculiar affection for the consolidation of much, much more.

Alas, although today’s so-called “democratic socialists” try to claim distinction among their peers by emphasizing popularcontrol—as opposed to the typical authoritarian shtick—the “democratization” of all things via political control will still surely lead to greater consolidations of power at the expense of many—particularly minorities and the least powerful.

In a review of the movement, Conor Friedersdorf highlights the underlying irony, noting that democratic socialists fail to foresee the various fruits of inequity that are bound to bloom. “To most Americans, ‘democracy’ always sounds appealing,” Friedersdorf writes. “But many young people who say they’re ‘democratic socialists’ may fail to grasp all that minorities would lose if democracy were radically less constrained by the political and economic system under which we currently live.”

As an example of the prevailing attitudes, Friedersdorf points to a Jacobinessay, in which the authors argue for the “socialization of power” and that “capitalists shouldn’t be able to hold all that power and impact all of society—it’s undemocratic and unjust.” They continue: “The core aim of socialism is not just the state gaining control of industry, but empowering the broad masses of people—in their workplaces, in munities, in their homes, in their schools, in their politics—to be in the driver’s seat of society.”

And how should such democratization actually manifest? Through “grassroots state planning agencies, workers’ cooperatives, participatory boards.”

This, of course, ignores the reality of the current capitalistic status quo, through which everyday consumers,not “capitalists,” hold the actual economic power. If you doubt this, ask the “capitalists” of MySpace, Compaq, Blockbuster, Sears, AOL, or any other big-business casualty of non-political economic “democratization” and bottom-up individual empowerment.

In weighing these alternatives, Friedersdorf aptly identifies the basic contradiction and conceit of “democratic socialism” and where it ultimately leads:

Instead of individual capitalists deciding what to produce in their endlessly varied, peting private businesses, “without any democratic input from the rest of society,” control over industry and decisions about what to produce would reside in state planning agencies. And imagine their decisions perfectly, if improbably, reflect the actual democratic will of workers, whether in the nation; or a state, like Ohio or Utah; or a metropolitan area, like Maricopa County or Oklahoma City.

Popular control is finally realized! So: How popular is Islam? How many Muslim prayer rugs would the democratic majority of workers vote to produce? How many Korans? How many head scarves? How much halal meat would be slaughtered? What share of construction materials would a majority of workers apportion to new mosques?

Under capitalism, the mere existence of buyers reliably gives rise to suppliers. Relying instead on democratic decisions would pose a big risk for Muslims. And Sikhs. And Hindus. And Jews. And maybe even Catholics.

Right now, under capitalism, vegetarians and vegans have more options every year. But there aren’t very many of them. Five percent of Americans are vegetarians. Three percent are vegans. Would “the workers” find a societal need to produce vegan meat or milk substitutes? No one knows the answer.

How important would worker majorities consider hair products for African Americans? What if a majority of workers decided that only mercial reading material should be printed in the United States?

The cognitive dissonance is real, and once we fully flesh out the implications, the supposed distinctions of the socialism’s “democratic” variety mostly disappear.

“Today’s democratic socialists earnestly want to avoid mass atrocities,” Friedersdorf concludes. “They believe they can do so by substituting extreme democracy for top-down socialism. But that very es with its own unique problems, and their ‘solution’ wouldstillconsolidate power that is now widely dispersed across different realms of society with different hierarchies.”

Let us remember: The democratic socialist’s proposed utopia is a world in which power across the economic order (and beyond) is taken from the hands of consumers and consolidated in “state planning agencies.” Citizens who don’t like the products or services or economic es are robbed of any recourse outside of the next election, in which the minority’s economic grievances will surely be blips on the majority’s radar. You’re not imagining things:All of this sounds oddly familiar,and

Indeed, while America’s progressives are already eye-ing the tip-top of the top-down, the reality is that even the most rosy of the proposed mechanisms fall terribly short. From “grassroots state planning agencies” to “workers’ cooperatives” to “participatory boards,” each is far less responsive and more prone to collectivist, discriminatory mischief than capitalism’s bottom-up alternative: simply empowering individuals to freely trade, invest, and consume, offering market feedback using plain old price signals and the mundane glories of entrepreneurship and economic exchange.

If we truly hope to “decentralize” or “deconsolidate” economic power, the answer is not the politicization of all things, which is what these calls to “democratization” actually are. If we hope to raise free and virtuous citizens who pioneer new paths and institutions for genuine munity and human relationship, the answer is not to throw our economic decisions to the whims of political mobs—“grassroots,” “democratic,” “cooperative,” or otherwise.

Rather than forming new mittees munity politburos, we should focus on diminishing corporate-political cronyism and barriers to entry where they actually exist, unleashing and empowering the creative spirit of each individual, in turn.

Image: David Shankbone(CC BY 2.0)

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Video: Wayne Grudem And Barry Asmus On A Solution To The Poverty Of Nations
So far, 2015 has given us our busiest Acton Lecture Series ever, and we’re pleased to share more of it with you today on the PowerBlog. Back on April 16, Acton had the privilegeof hosting Wayne Grudem and Barry Asmus, who spoke on the topic of the book they jointly authored,The Poverty of Nations: A Sustainable Solution. First, the bios: Wayne Grudem is Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary; he is the author or co-author of...
Subsidizing Subsidiarity: How Conservatives Failed New Orleans
This week marks the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina making landfall on the Gulf Coast. As always happens when remembering suchignominious events, we look back in hindsight to attempt to learn what could have been done differently. If we’re being honest with ourselves, we conservatives will admit that we share some of the blame for the disaster—just not in the way many of us realize. The colossal failures in leadership in the wake of Hurricane Katrina proved once again that,...
Acton Institute Selected as Templeton Freedom Award Finalist for Poverty Inc. Documentary
The Acton Institute has been named as one of six finalists for this year’s $100,000 Templeton Freedom Award for its documentary film, Poverty, Inc. The announcement of the finalists was made Monday by the Atlas Network, a Washington-based organization that advances the work of market-oriented public policy organizations all over the world. The winner will be selected Nov. 12 in New York. Atlas’ description of Poverty, Inc. says the documentary “provides prehensive perspective on the issue, giving voice to charity...
The Moral Dimension of Work
“The world is not a parsimonious place, in spite of the dogmas of the ecologists,” says James V. Schall in this week’s Acton Commentary. Our most unsettling economic problems are actually not economic but moral—moral ones that cannot be simply passed on from generation to generation. They need to be chosen and internalized by each person in each generation at the risk of deflecting material goods from their proper purposes. Work likewise is not exclusively for its own sake. Rather...
Psalm 19 and Human Flourishing
The mission of the Acton Institute is to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles. We seek to articulate a vision of society that is both free and virtuous, the end of which is human flourishing. That phrase—“human flourishing”—has e such a buzzword, though, that it’s in danger of losing any real meaning. As Scott Swain says, “Due to its widespread usage across our culture, its susceptibility to multiple meanings, and its...
Catholicism’s tension with the Enlightenment
In a recent article for The Stream, Acton’s Director of Research, Samuel Gregg asks the question, “Is Catholicism Compatible with the American Experiment?” Gregg cites an article by political philosopher Patrick Deneen who suggested that “the main argument among American Catholics will concern the relationship of modern liberal democracies–and, at a deeper level, the American Founding–with Catholicism.” Gregg doesn’t necessarily disagree with this assertion, but argues that it “reaches further back to the early modern period often called the Enlightenment.”...
Creation Care and Catholic Social Teaching
Pope Francis recently declared September 1 as the World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation, an annual day of prayer begun by the Orthodox Church in 1989. In conjunction with the event, Catholic Relief Services and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have released “Care for God’s Creation,” the first of a seven-part video series on Catholic social teaching. (Via: Crux) ...
Rev. Sirico on Francis’ ‘Year of Mercy’
Pope Francis recently announced a “year of mercy,” making it easier for the Catholic Church to forgive women for having abortions. Acton’s President and Co-founder Robert Sirico went on WSJ Live to discuss this. Watch below: ...
Can Capitalism Save the Arts?
Capitalism is routinely castigated as an enemy of the arts, with much of the finger-pointing bent toward monsters of profit and efficiency. Other critiques take aim at more systemic features, fearing that the type of industrialization that markets sometimes tend toward will inevitably detach artists from healthy social contexts, sucking dry any potential for flourishing as a result. But what if the opposite is true? I offer the argument over at The Federalist. Free economies introduce their own unique challenges...
Court Rules March for Life Qualifies for Abortifacient Mandate Exemption Based on Moral, Not Just Religious, Objections
Imagine if the government were to tell an organization dedicated to veganism that, because of a new mandate, they must purchase a meat platter to serve at their monthly meetings and that the chair cushions in their conference room must be made of leather. Appalled by this governmental intrusion, the vegans ask to be excluded from the mandate since none of their members wish to eat bologna while sitting on dead cow skin. They also point out that a group...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved