What do you think?
Rate this book
Politically Incorrect Guides
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism
Stalin’s gulag, impoverished North Korea, collapsing Cuba ... it’s hard to name a dogma that has failed as spectacularly as socialism. And yet leaders around the world continue to subject millions of people to this dysfunctional, violence-prone ideology.
In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, Kevin Williamson reveals the fatal flaw of socialism — that efficient, complex economies simply can’t be centrally planned. But even in America, that hasn’t stopped politicians and bureaucrats from planning, to various extents, the most vital sectors of our economy: public education, energy, and the most arrogant central–planning effort of them all, Obama’s healthcare plan.
In this provocative book, Williamson unfolds the grim history of socialism, showing how the ideology has spawned crushing poverty, devastating famines, and horrific wars. Lumbering from one crisis to the next, leaving a trail of economic devastation and environmental catastrophe, socialism has wreaked more havoc, caused more deaths, and impoverished more people than any other ideology in history — especially when you include the victims of fascism, which Williamson notes is simply a variant of socialism.
Williamson further demonstrates:
* Why, contrary to popular belief, socialism in theory is no better than socialism in practice
* Why socialism can’t exist without capitalism
* How the energy powerhouse of Venezuela, under socialism, has become an economic basket case subject to rationing and blackouts
* How socialism, not British colonialism, plunged the bountiful economy of India into stagnation and dysfunction — and how capitalism is rescuing it
* Why socialism is inextricably linked to communism
If you thought socialism went into the dustbin of history with the collapse of the Soviet Union, think again. Socialism is alive and kicking, and it’s already spread further than you know.
In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, Kevin Williamson reveals the fatal flaw of socialism — that efficient, complex economies simply can’t be centrally planned. But even in America, that hasn’t stopped politicians and bureaucrats from planning, to various extents, the most vital sectors of our economy: public education, energy, and the most arrogant central–planning effort of them all, Obama’s healthcare plan.
In this provocative book, Williamson unfolds the grim history of socialism, showing how the ideology has spawned crushing poverty, devastating famines, and horrific wars. Lumbering from one crisis to the next, leaving a trail of economic devastation and environmental catastrophe, socialism has wreaked more havoc, caused more deaths, and impoverished more people than any other ideology in history — especially when you include the victims of fascism, which Williamson notes is simply a variant of socialism.
Williamson further demonstrates:
* Why, contrary to popular belief, socialism in theory is no better than socialism in practice
* Why socialism can’t exist without capitalism
* How the energy powerhouse of Venezuela, under socialism, has become an economic basket case subject to rationing and blackouts
* How socialism, not British colonialism, plunged the bountiful economy of India into stagnation and dysfunction — and how capitalism is rescuing it
* Why socialism is inextricably linked to communism
If you thought socialism went into the dustbin of history with the collapse of the Soviet Union, think again. Socialism is alive and kicking, and it’s already spread further than you know.
304 pages, Paperback
First published December 20, 2010
110 people are currently reading
783 people want to read
About the author
Kevin D. Williamson
9 books113 followersKevin D. Williamson is National Review's roving correspondent. He is the author of The End Is Near and It's Going To Be Awesome: How Going Broke Will Leave America Richer, Happier, and More Secure, The Dependency Agenda, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, and contributed chapters to The New Leviathan: The State Vs. the Individual in the 21st Century and Future Tense: Lessons of Culture in an Age of Upheaval. When he is not sounding the alarm about fiscal armageddon, he co-hosts the Mad Dogs & Englishmen podcast with fellow National Review writer Charles C. W. Cooke.
Williamson began his journalism career at the Bombay-based Indian Express Newspaper Group and spent 15 years in the newspaper business in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. He served as editor-in-chief of three newspapers and was the founding editor of Philadelphia's Bulletin. He is a regulator commentator on Fox News, CNBC, MSNBC, and NPR. His work has appeared in The New York Post, The New York Daily News, Commentary, Academic Questions, and The New Criterion, where he served as theater critic. He is a native of Lubbock, Texas.
Williamson began his journalism career at the Bombay-based Indian Express Newspaper Group and spent 15 years in the newspaper business in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. He served as editor-in-chief of three newspapers and was the founding editor of Philadelphia's Bulletin. He is a regulator commentator on Fox News, CNBC, MSNBC, and NPR. His work has appeared in The New York Post, The New York Daily News, Commentary, Academic Questions, and The New Criterion, where he served as theater critic. He is a native of Lubbock, Texas.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews
August 30, 2020
Intellectually dishonest. Central planning isn't socialism. Central planning is a model of organization, which nearly every single group or enterprise uses. It's cute to run around quoting libertarian or Austrian economists, but taking snippets out of context is pretty dishonest and lazy.
November 18, 2011
I love truth. This book shows the continued falacies of socialism, and the refusal to accept the true impact that socialism has on cultures, people groups, and even the earth. Socialism is a plague that should be eradicated. An excellent book.
July 14, 2011
Great. Williamson shows how socialism (defined as central planning of non-public goods/services) is always disruptive at best, deadly at worst. The past century has made it clear that socialism is simply inconsistent with how the world works, which makes its advocates either arrogant or naive (or both). I also enjoyed Williamson's thoughts on what we really ought to be doing to reform healthcare. Highly recommended.
October 8, 2011
I think I hated this book. While I am no socialist or even a democrat, Williamson makes even the choice to drive a Prius instead of a Hummer a socialist choice because to do so is to reduce the amount of oil you consume personally. I don't think that a capitalist society is necessarily the one that consumes as much as they possibly can regardless of their wants or needs. A person is generally going to spend their money on something, that has been make clear. Spending it on oil is not necessarily the only place to spend it. I prefer to buy food, straight from the farmer, not Wallstreet.
Having Wallstreet trade grain futures doesn't help the farmer or the hungry, it only helps Wallstreet and takes the free out of free trade because the hungry can no longer buy from the farmer. The farmer and the hungry is dependent on the good will of the mega rich. When is the price of grain high enough that the profits are enough? After half the country is starving and the other half is desperate? Wallstreet does not engage in supply and demand. They engage in profits by withholding the supply even if the supply starts to rot while they are holding it. While Wallstreet ownership of all grain may not be Socialism, it certainly is not capitalism. It is something far more corrupt and evil. Possibly food tyrany.
These are not his only points and some of what he says is very interesting but overall, while he seems very studied on socialism in the world, past and present, his opinions come across as very naive. As with his opinion on socialism, socialism in a perfect world may work perfectly, capitalism without greed and corruption may also work perfectly.
He seems to attribute any possitive environmental workings in capitalism to the good intentions of the corporation and talks about accountAbility. That accountability is not the doing of the corporations, that is the EPA. Another hated, big government organization. Does anyone realize that nothing in America would be edible or potable if the government hadn't stepped in and forced the capitalist corporations to look to something else besides their own profits? Maybe socialists are even worse when the government is heartless and thoughtless but last time I checked, all of Europe was not poluted beyond repair.
Having Wallstreet trade grain futures doesn't help the farmer or the hungry, it only helps Wallstreet and takes the free out of free trade because the hungry can no longer buy from the farmer. The farmer and the hungry is dependent on the good will of the mega rich. When is the price of grain high enough that the profits are enough? After half the country is starving and the other half is desperate? Wallstreet does not engage in supply and demand. They engage in profits by withholding the supply even if the supply starts to rot while they are holding it. While Wallstreet ownership of all grain may not be Socialism, it certainly is not capitalism. It is something far more corrupt and evil. Possibly food tyrany.
These are not his only points and some of what he says is very interesting but overall, while he seems very studied on socialism in the world, past and present, his opinions come across as very naive. As with his opinion on socialism, socialism in a perfect world may work perfectly, capitalism without greed and corruption may also work perfectly.
He seems to attribute any possitive environmental workings in capitalism to the good intentions of the corporation and talks about accountAbility. That accountability is not the doing of the corporations, that is the EPA. Another hated, big government organization. Does anyone realize that nothing in America would be edible or potable if the government hadn't stepped in and forced the capitalist corporations to look to something else besides their own profits? Maybe socialists are even worse when the government is heartless and thoughtless but last time I checked, all of Europe was not poluted beyond repair.
August 2, 2012
I was looking for a balanced view of marxism, socialism, and communism. This wasn't it.
It was an anti-central planning rant using the same kind of broad strokes as Ann Coulter.
It was an anti-central planning rant using the same kind of broad strokes as Ann Coulter.
December 22, 2025
This is more of a pamphlet than a book. It is, unfortunately, a sorely needed work because each generation must be rigorously schooled in why market economics works, why it feels unnatural and uncomfortable, and why we must work hard to preserve and expand it.
Socialism often means different things to different people. Williamson's working definition errs on the expansive side, including any system in which economic life is organized through political authority rather than voluntary market exchange regardless of whether the state formally owns the assets involved. The strictest definition of socialism would only include situations in which the state formally owns industrial assets (capital) in the market or owns a substantial amount of those industry assets. Thus, there are elements of socialism in America's otherwise market economy in Williamson's assessment and these elements, despite their popularity, do not escape his criticism.
It's worth summarizing the main points of Williamson's rebuttal:
1. Socialism has been a historical failure as an economic model.
This is an empirical point relying primarily on the history of the 20th century. From Stalin’s gulags to North Korea and Cuba, socialists have a lot of blood and poverty on their hands. In some ways, it is a bit difficult to disentangle the authoritarian natures of the political economy of socialist countries and their outcomes, though Williamson sees this as an inherent part of socialism given that it compels a government to violate property rights, a bedrock principle of liberalism (more on this point later).
2. Central planning cannot be done efficiently
The core claim is that complex economies cannot be efficiently managed by central planners because they lack the necessary information and incentives that markets provide. This leads to waste, inefficiency, and policy failure. This is basically a restatement of Hayek's "Problem of knowledge." It is a strong theoretical rejoinder to central planning, which has been reinforced by the history of socialism's failures.
3. Socialism depends on the gains of capitalism.
This is an extension of Marxist theory, where socialism or communism is considered to be the next stage after capitalism. This is why one hears lots of talk of "late capitalism." However, Williamson doesn't believe in a teleology of political economy like Marxist, but rather points out the reality that growth and wealth are pre-requisite for any government hoping to redistribute or possess these things. The issue that then arises for socialist system is how to keep the growth and wealth going after destroying the system responsible for it (capitalism).
4. Socialism infringes on individual rights and tends to favor authoritarianism
Drawing again on Friedrich Hayek, Williamson argues that any socialist entity eventually must turn to coercion. If socialism is economic planning downstream of politics and if it depends on appropriating wealth rather than creating it, the government eventually must pillage the resources of its own people. This only is accepted when the governing regime is authoritarian and individual rights are not guaranteed.
5. The generic political case for social democracy depends on misinterpretations of Western success.
Socialists often mistake capitalist outcomes for socialist achievements. For example, the Nordic countries are often held up as successful examples of socialism when in reality they are predominantly market economies. Their welfare systems are dependent on robust private sector activity and in many dimensions their economies are more liberalized (aka more capitalistic) than America's.
Socialists overlook how deeply intertwined Western culture is with our political economy and why changing one will results in changes to the other. These changes are unlikely to be salutary based on the historical record, real-world outcomes, and economic theory.
6. The "success" of public schooling and social spending are exaggerated.
Williamson’s critique of public schooling and public services (like national health care services) follows directly from his broader claim that socialism fails because it replaces competition and choice with political administration. He does not argue that these systems never produce benefits, but that they systematically underperform relative to what their advocates promise, and that their failures are structural rather than accidental. Compassion does not overcome incentive problems. Equality of access does not guarantee quality. Centralized control cannot substitute for decentralized decision-making.
Williamson uses examples like Venezuela’s economic collapse, India’s stagnation under socialist policies, and critiques of claims that countries like Sweden demonstrate successful socialism, arguing these cases show socialism undermines prosperity and social well-being. It is a pretty standard and pretty clear rebuttal of the issues of socialism as a political economy. It is worth reading if you're someone that finds the claims of socialism appealing or need a refresher on why market economies are superior to centrally controlled ones.
Socialism often means different things to different people. Williamson's working definition errs on the expansive side, including any system in which economic life is organized through political authority rather than voluntary market exchange regardless of whether the state formally owns the assets involved. The strictest definition of socialism would only include situations in which the state formally owns industrial assets (capital) in the market or owns a substantial amount of those industry assets. Thus, there are elements of socialism in America's otherwise market economy in Williamson's assessment and these elements, despite their popularity, do not escape his criticism.
It's worth summarizing the main points of Williamson's rebuttal:
1. Socialism has been a historical failure as an economic model.
This is an empirical point relying primarily on the history of the 20th century. From Stalin’s gulags to North Korea and Cuba, socialists have a lot of blood and poverty on their hands. In some ways, it is a bit difficult to disentangle the authoritarian natures of the political economy of socialist countries and their outcomes, though Williamson sees this as an inherent part of socialism given that it compels a government to violate property rights, a bedrock principle of liberalism (more on this point later).
2. Central planning cannot be done efficiently
The core claim is that complex economies cannot be efficiently managed by central planners because they lack the necessary information and incentives that markets provide. This leads to waste, inefficiency, and policy failure. This is basically a restatement of Hayek's "Problem of knowledge." It is a strong theoretical rejoinder to central planning, which has been reinforced by the history of socialism's failures.
3. Socialism depends on the gains of capitalism.
This is an extension of Marxist theory, where socialism or communism is considered to be the next stage after capitalism. This is why one hears lots of talk of "late capitalism." However, Williamson doesn't believe in a teleology of political economy like Marxist, but rather points out the reality that growth and wealth are pre-requisite for any government hoping to redistribute or possess these things. The issue that then arises for socialist system is how to keep the growth and wealth going after destroying the system responsible for it (capitalism).
4. Socialism infringes on individual rights and tends to favor authoritarianism
Drawing again on Friedrich Hayek, Williamson argues that any socialist entity eventually must turn to coercion. If socialism is economic planning downstream of politics and if it depends on appropriating wealth rather than creating it, the government eventually must pillage the resources of its own people. This only is accepted when the governing regime is authoritarian and individual rights are not guaranteed.
5. The generic political case for social democracy depends on misinterpretations of Western success.
Socialists often mistake capitalist outcomes for socialist achievements. For example, the Nordic countries are often held up as successful examples of socialism when in reality they are predominantly market economies. Their welfare systems are dependent on robust private sector activity and in many dimensions their economies are more liberalized (aka more capitalistic) than America's.
Socialists overlook how deeply intertwined Western culture is with our political economy and why changing one will results in changes to the other. These changes are unlikely to be salutary based on the historical record, real-world outcomes, and economic theory.
6. The "success" of public schooling and social spending are exaggerated.
Williamson’s critique of public schooling and public services (like national health care services) follows directly from his broader claim that socialism fails because it replaces competition and choice with political administration. He does not argue that these systems never produce benefits, but that they systematically underperform relative to what their advocates promise, and that their failures are structural rather than accidental. Compassion does not overcome incentive problems. Equality of access does not guarantee quality. Centralized control cannot substitute for decentralized decision-making.
Williamson uses examples like Venezuela’s economic collapse, India’s stagnation under socialist policies, and critiques of claims that countries like Sweden demonstrate successful socialism, arguing these cases show socialism undermines prosperity and social well-being. It is a pretty standard and pretty clear rebuttal of the issues of socialism as a political economy. It is worth reading if you're someone that finds the claims of socialism appealing or need a refresher on why market economies are superior to centrally controlled ones.
January 17, 2021
Exactly what you'd expect a disciple of Austrian economics would apply the learnings. An informative dive in various cases of socialism. The author was excellent and entertaining at showing the potential pitfalls when meddling with pricing mechanisms.
That said, the book was light on discussing market failures and competition issues. Reminded me of a recent article by a Latvian legal pundit. She answered her own question, in the context of Covid-19 - Who should get healtcare when resources are scarce? - by saying that state must ensure that everyone is taken care of, as per the constitution. The analysis in that article did not touch on the reality in which doctors or politicians must make decisions about lives or funding, respectively.
Similarly, in this book the underlying assumption seems to be that the playing field is more or less fair. That, all in all, Americans choose to have inefficient health-care system. Attempts to make the system more efficient and better for the disadvantaged that deviate from laissez-faire are clearly steps towards socialism. And that risk is impermissible, even in light of widespread suffering of the uninsured, and bargaining power and informational asymmetries in favour of the health insurers.
Especially in light of naturally imperfect competition, I don't agree that pitting individuals against large insurers lead to optimal outcomes. Individuals face a coordination problem, and a natural way to overcome it is to let elected representatives bargain for them.
Also, a system that embodies (a) ever increasing wealth concentration and (b) close relationship between wealth and power cannot remain democratic for long. That's a real problem, whatever free market fundamentalism may prescribe.
Hence, I'd say this book is a good look into the workings of the mind of an Austrian economist, and a worthwhile collection of case studies from this perspective. But it probably isn't of much use for anyone who seriously addresses actual problems, instead of taking principled stands or making principled comments.
That said, the book was light on discussing market failures and competition issues. Reminded me of a recent article by a Latvian legal pundit. She answered her own question, in the context of Covid-19 - Who should get healtcare when resources are scarce? - by saying that state must ensure that everyone is taken care of, as per the constitution. The analysis in that article did not touch on the reality in which doctors or politicians must make decisions about lives or funding, respectively.
Similarly, in this book the underlying assumption seems to be that the playing field is more or less fair. That, all in all, Americans choose to have inefficient health-care system. Attempts to make the system more efficient and better for the disadvantaged that deviate from laissez-faire are clearly steps towards socialism. And that risk is impermissible, even in light of widespread suffering of the uninsured, and bargaining power and informational asymmetries in favour of the health insurers.
Especially in light of naturally imperfect competition, I don't agree that pitting individuals against large insurers lead to optimal outcomes. Individuals face a coordination problem, and a natural way to overcome it is to let elected representatives bargain for them.
Also, a system that embodies (a) ever increasing wealth concentration and (b) close relationship between wealth and power cannot remain democratic for long. That's a real problem, whatever free market fundamentalism may prescribe.
Hence, I'd say this book is a good look into the workings of the mind of an Austrian economist, and a worthwhile collection of case studies from this perspective. But it probably isn't of much use for anyone who seriously addresses actual problems, instead of taking principled stands or making principled comments.
June 18, 2021
This book begins rather surprisingly to define socialism in terms that are fairly honest and simple. It made some points I found valid and enlightening. Unfortunately, it didn’t take long before it became an extremely biased attack on all things liberal and progressive.
An example that was very frustrating was the references over and over to all of Obama’s policies and administration, but when referring to the 2008 recession, there was never any mention to the Bush administration that was in power leading up to the event. Not to say that the author didn’t acknowledge capitalisms imperfections, but he conveniently distances capitalism from conservative policies while implying that all democratic policies and political figures are synonymous with socialism.
I was not surprised, but certainly disappointed that the author was incapable of concealing his biases better (at all really).
An example that was very frustrating was the references over and over to all of Obama’s policies and administration, but when referring to the 2008 recession, there was never any mention to the Bush administration that was in power leading up to the event. Not to say that the author didn’t acknowledge capitalisms imperfections, but he conveniently distances capitalism from conservative policies while implying that all democratic policies and political figures are synonymous with socialism.
I was not surprised, but certainly disappointed that the author was incapable of concealing his biases better (at all really).
August 7, 2012
Great book. Great series. This guide will enlighten you as to all the ins and outs of Socialism: why it's inherently flawed and why it still lays claim to legions of enthusiastic proponents despite its truly abysmal track record.
October 30, 2022
Most of it is very American/west oriented but still, it's a very strong and sensible critique of socialism although the author does sound like a rabid capitalist(hates the Swedish model, NHS, Nehru etc) so keep that in mind. No quarter is given here.
August 4, 2012
Socialism is even more evil that I thought! ;-)
January 10, 2022
I am not a socialist. Socialism (and communism) killed my ancestors, including my grandmother, and destroyed my parents' lives. I was born into communist West Germany, and it was a horrific situation. But also this book is bad.
December 14, 2022
Intellectually dishonest and wilfully ignorant: this is quite possibly the worst book that I have ever read, and I’ve read “Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon”
Read
August 18, 2011Kevin D. Williamson's great book on a historically (fact history) and relevant topic for today's political world should be read by everyone. As I have written before, my four decades on this planet have allowed me to appreciate the facts within this text. Easy to read, and most interestingly written, "Politically Incorrect..." is another book, which read in tandem with the other books I am reading, and have read, helps cement a very styrong picture of realty in this geo-political world.
August 23, 2016
why do i do these things to myself?
October 17, 2019
This is a fantastic book, very much in the vein of Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. The writer is lucid, on the mark, and humorous. The breadth of his learning shows, but is not shown off.
As someone who lived in a more socialist country than America, and grew up using the British NHS, I can attest that he accurately understands what central planning does to industries and especially to healthcare.
Very useful.
Loved it.
As someone who lived in a more socialist country than America, and grew up using the British NHS, I can attest that he accurately understands what central planning does to industries and especially to healthcare.
Very useful.
Loved it.
December 7, 2020
For every socialist there is a new definition of what socialism since each socialist has their own dream of utopia. This quick reference book will help bring them back to reality.
July 23, 2018
People say socialism hasn’t worked because real socialism hasn’t been tried. I’ve put something similar forward – maybe communism hasn’t worked because 1) it hasn’t been done as prescribed and 2) maybe you need many other countries to be communist in order for it to work. To be clear, I don’t think this argument works but it’s something I considered. The author says non-ideal capitalism beats non-ideal socialism and I think that deals with point 1 above. I’d also add that capitalism works no matter if other countries are capitalist (although perhaps its efficacy would be different). I suppose as a thought experiment you could posit that ideal communism beats ideal capitalism but it would be a hard case to argue.
One great argument the author put forward is that one of the problems with socialism is it relies too heavily on arbitrary definitions such as the definition of a unit of labour. For example, if you tell people they will be paid x amount for y weight of iron nails they may just produce massive nails that no one can use. Another example: when school funding was awarded according to graduation rates, apparently, standards lowered (I don’t know if this is really true but the logic is sound).
I like a bit of socialism. Free education for kids (which is in the communist manifesto); access to basic healthcare for all. The author seems to be in favour of a mixed economy (me too), but where capitalism generally predominates. I think he made a good case.
I’d recommend reading some books that disagree with this position (as I will) because I’m not sure he was always thoroughly honest in debunking socialism, nor admitting the problems with capitalism.
One great argument the author put forward is that one of the problems with socialism is it relies too heavily on arbitrary definitions such as the definition of a unit of labour. For example, if you tell people they will be paid x amount for y weight of iron nails they may just produce massive nails that no one can use. Another example: when school funding was awarded according to graduation rates, apparently, standards lowered (I don’t know if this is really true but the logic is sound).
I like a bit of socialism. Free education for kids (which is in the communist manifesto); access to basic healthcare for all. The author seems to be in favour of a mixed economy (me too), but where capitalism generally predominates. I think he made a good case.
I’d recommend reading some books that disagree with this position (as I will) because I’m not sure he was always thoroughly honest in debunking socialism, nor admitting the problems with capitalism.
January 11, 2023
At the end of this book, I still can't articulate why socialism is bad.
The author makes a few fallacies (or at least I felt he did):
1. Attributing the ills of authoritarianism and dictatorship to socialism.
2. Not acknowledging that policy-making of stupid politicians has nothing to do with what economic model a country adopts.
3. Ignoring similar problems in a capitalistic society - for example, the author describes the destruction of the Aral Sea by socialist Russians, but fails to state the other similar and numerous ecological problems caused by capitalistic states and companies driven by the need to profit.
4. Ignoring the fact that advocates of capitalism twist and bastardize the principles of capitalism as much as those of socialism; that the original definition of either is no longer used as intended.
As I kept reading the book, I kept thinking to myself: but that is because of the dictator in question, but that happens in capitalism as well, but is this a democracy/authoritarian problem or capitalism/socialism problem, etc.
It just feels like a poorly constructed just-for-the-sake-of-doing-so arguments. I'm no economist, but even to a lay person like me, the points seemed half-baked.
The author makes a few fallacies (or at least I felt he did):
1. Attributing the ills of authoritarianism and dictatorship to socialism.
2. Not acknowledging that policy-making of stupid politicians has nothing to do with what economic model a country adopts.
3. Ignoring similar problems in a capitalistic society - for example, the author describes the destruction of the Aral Sea by socialist Russians, but fails to state the other similar and numerous ecological problems caused by capitalistic states and companies driven by the need to profit.
4. Ignoring the fact that advocates of capitalism twist and bastardize the principles of capitalism as much as those of socialism; that the original definition of either is no longer used as intended.
As I kept reading the book, I kept thinking to myself: but that is because of the dictator in question, but that happens in capitalism as well, but is this a democracy/authoritarian problem or capitalism/socialism problem, etc.
It just feels like a poorly constructed just-for-the-sake-of-doing-so arguments. I'm no economist, but even to a lay person like me, the points seemed half-baked.
January 23, 2014
A bit uneven in its clarity, chapter by chapter, but a very enlightening book. Some of the best chapters involve the oil industry and the current US pursuit of "energy independence", of our supposed overspending on health care and overconsumption of energy, and the economics of the public education system. Not quite as top-notch as Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Facism", but at the same time a more readable and a more topical description of socialist theory and practice, and the history and limitations of its practical implementation around the world (including Sweden, the supposed poster child of socialist utopias). Highly recommended.
April 14, 2022
Interesting, with many anecdotal and historical examples to draw from. Some of it was old knowledge for me but there were some very eye-opening sections of the book, as well as more nuts-and-bolts understanding of exactly what socialism tries to do and actually does. Quite fascinating! In the end, socialism seems like yet another showing of the ultimate arrogance of mankind - the idea that any one man, group, society or even continent could ever fully understand how to manage and improve anyone else's life.
September 15, 2015
Very good book for defining that which Americans refuse to define: Socialism.
Socialism, Communism, and the likes, are always seen as a problem in other countries, but not here in America. Other countries are criticized for their oppressions and evils, but in America we have FREEDOM!
We'll as it turns out "freedom" in America is not what people think, nor is it free at all.
Before you can fix a problem you have to identify it. This book does a good job of doing just that.
Socialism, Communism, and the likes, are always seen as a problem in other countries, but not here in America. Other countries are criticized for their oppressions and evils, but in America we have FREEDOM!
We'll as it turns out "freedom" in America is not what people think, nor is it free at all.
Before you can fix a problem you have to identify it. This book does a good job of doing just that.
October 13, 2019
This really should be a mandatory read for those who think that socialism is a relic of a forgotten past. Contrary to popular belief, the socialist impulse is alive and well. What I like most is the irreverent way in which the book is written, so that the reader can open his eyes and realize the danger that this ideology represents.
August 31, 2015
Pretty standard review of the critiques of socialism written at about a high school senior's level. Read Hayek and Mises instead if you have the time.
March 2, 2021
A book that outlines the political idea of socialism well. While Williamson doesn't get into the absolute nitty gritty details about the failed economic policies like other econ books might, he gets at the main drivers as to why this philosophy has survived despite a long track record of failure. Obviously, there is a right-wing bend given the author, but it would be a good book to read after studying pro-socialism books in order to compare/contrast against.
November 20, 2020
A great book that studies the varieties of socialisms, whether it was called in a particular instance a state-capitalism, or a centrally-planned economy, or a redistributionary society, or whatever.
This is an excellent book for those not so lofty idealists, plagued by sickly ideology that undermines the value of freedom, and seeks to empower the most vile and decrepit idiots who would lord over us to create the great society.
This is an excellent book for those not so lofty idealists, plagued by sickly ideology that undermines the value of freedom, and seeks to empower the most vile and decrepit idiots who would lord over us to create the great society.
January 5, 2016
I would probably give this 2.5 stars if I could go half way. I liked it but not a whole lot. It suffers from what I suspect is too narrow a focus (much like the Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, which was just fine as a chapter in the PIG Science book). Similarly, this could probably have been a chapter in the PIG Economics book. In its efforts to comment on the current state of the US, it has unfortunately dated itself with the sheer volume of references to the Obama administration and ObamaCare, so I suspect it won't hold up well.
On the other hand, some of the ideas are interesting. The author defines socialism as government control of an economy, or at least part of it. This is a fairly useful definition, although it tends to make capitalism stand out as the only non-socialist government. The author points out that nationalism and fascism are thus socialism by other names. I can wrap my mind around this, but not when by definition, monarchy and even feudalism would also be included.
The book does have some interesting ideas, such as how the US National Highway system was a socialist enterprise. In addition, the last chapter is quite good about how the prices of things give us vital information, and if we obscure that information, e.g. by having health insurance pay for things instead of ourselves, costs get out of whack and are kept from capitalism's ruthless efficiency due to competition and choice. It would have been more fun to read if the other chapters had similarly inspiring arguments and wry humor.
On the other hand, some of the ideas are interesting. The author defines socialism as government control of an economy, or at least part of it. This is a fairly useful definition, although it tends to make capitalism stand out as the only non-socialist government. The author points out that nationalism and fascism are thus socialism by other names. I can wrap my mind around this, but not when by definition, monarchy and even feudalism would also be included.
The book does have some interesting ideas, such as how the US National Highway system was a socialist enterprise. In addition, the last chapter is quite good about how the prices of things give us vital information, and if we obscure that information, e.g. by having health insurance pay for things instead of ourselves, costs get out of whack and are kept from capitalism's ruthless efficiency due to competition and choice. It would have been more fun to read if the other chapters had similarly inspiring arguments and wry humor.
February 26, 2023
Holy complete biased bullshit, Batman.
This book is painfully obviously written by and for conservatives to maintain right-wing conservatism.
The VERY FIRST lines of the entire book is the quote "The problem with Capitalism is Capitalists. The problem with Socialism is Socialism."
It announces, very firmly, who they're bending over for.
Conservatives claim to want "non-biased" news and information - but then gobble this shit up like a crack addict in the midst of a hard come-down.
THEN it launches into hounding on North Korea.
NO background as to why North and South Korea split in the first place. What cause North Korea to go the direction it did.
And manages to slip in some good ol' U.S. ass-kissing in the midst of it.
Absolutely disgusting.
Done with it within the first 2 minutes.
Absolute propaganda garbage for idiots who refuse to study history in context and enjoy their echochambers...
This book is painfully obviously written by and for conservatives to maintain right-wing conservatism.
The VERY FIRST lines of the entire book is the quote "The problem with Capitalism is Capitalists. The problem with Socialism is Socialism."
It announces, very firmly, who they're bending over for.
Conservatives claim to want "non-biased" news and information - but then gobble this shit up like a crack addict in the midst of a hard come-down.
THEN it launches into hounding on North Korea.
NO background as to why North and South Korea split in the first place. What cause North Korea to go the direction it did.
And manages to slip in some good ol' U.S. ass-kissing in the midst of it.
Absolutely disgusting.
Done with it within the first 2 minutes.
Absolute propaganda garbage for idiots who refuse to study history in context and enjoy their echochambers...
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 20, 2012
Nice book. Sometimes it makes too much Milton Friedman style arguments for my taste. However, it is a detailed analysis about the false assumptions of socialism. Specially, it helped me to understand how flawed socialism is about pricing and their romanticism about how the world works. I had an intuition about its extreme romanticism after reading the communist manifesto. But now all my intuitions were confirmed: "Socialism is (a) a romantic denial of economic facts, (b) a moralization of economics, (c) an open invitation to corruption, (d) a conscious denial about market prices, (e) an ideology followed by history's biggest murderers (Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Lennin, etc.) ".
April 30, 2011
If you found yourself wanting more background as to why Obama was labeled as a socialist, or compared to Hitler, or a called a communist, this book may help address your questions. It's more than that, of course, but does give good background explaining failed socialist policies from around the world, and explains the concerns of many regarding the Obama Administration, Obamacare, and the reasons conservatives would be against those policies.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 90 reviews