The Problem with Socialism

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

"DiLorenzo's book is a pleasure to read and should be put in the hands of every young person in this country - and elsewhere!"  —FORMER CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL "It is a worthwhile investment for parents with college-age children to buy two copies of The Problem with Socialism -one for their children and one for themselves." —WALTER E. WILLIAMS, John M Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics, George Mason University and nationally syndicated columnist "Ever wonder what one book you should give a young person to make sure he doesn't fall for leftist propoganda? You're looking at it." —THOMAS E. WOODS, JR., host of The Tom Woods Show, author of the New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History What’s the Problem with Socialism? Let’s start with...everything.  So says bestselling author and professor of economics Thomas J. DiLorenzo, who sets the record straight in this concise and lively primer on an economic theory that’s gaining popularity—with help from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders—despite its universal failure as an economic model and its truly horrific record on human rights. In sixteen eye-opening chapters, DiLorenzo reveals how socialism inevitably makes inequality worse, why socialism was behind the worst government-sponsored mass murders in history, the myth of “successful” Scandinavian socialism; how socialism is worse—far worse—for the environment than capitalism, and more. As DiLorenzo shows, and history proves, socialism is the answer only if you want increasing unemployment and poverty, stifling bureaucracy if not outright political tyranny, catastrophic environmental pollution, rotten schools, and so many social ills that it takes a book like this to cover just the big ones. Provocative, timely, essential reading, Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s The Problem with Socialism is an instant classic comparable to Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson.' In the words of Thomas E. Woods - "Dance on socialism's grave by reading this book." 

Genres: Politics, Economics, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Audiobook, Political Science

227 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2016

About the author

Thomas James DiLorenzo is an American economics professor at Loyola University Maryland. He identifies himself as an adherent of the Austrian School of economics. He is a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and an associated scholar of the Abbeville Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Virginia Tech.

Reviews

[Amora · Rating 4 out of 5]

Economist Thomas J. DiLorenzo hit the ball right out of the park with this one. In this book DiLorenzo points out examples all over the world where socialism has been tried and has led to economic failure. He also debunks common conventional myths about capitalism and socialism that you've likely heard over dozens of times by clueless professors or proponents of socialism, such as "the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer" and "capitalism causes war." I recommend this gem to everyone who believes in free markets, supports capitalism, or was a victim of the evils of socialism.

[Nikki in Niagara · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is probably the first book about politics that I have read. I am however an extremely political person :-) The greatest evil facing us today from within our own governments and authorities in power is socialism. This is a tremendous book written in layman's language by a man with a PhD in economics. Most of the chapters I knew the topic being discussed but I've learnt a wealth of history, quotes and names of those worthy of reading and quoting. While not written for students I think every young person graduating high school should read this book to help temper the socialistic ideology taught in public schools. There is a strange fascination about socialism from today's youth; those who didn't suffer the Cold War or live behind the Iron Curtain honestly haven't a clue about what it really is. Socialism = Communism = Fascism and this book in simple terms from a professor of the subject will tell you the history of where socialism came from, how it's been implemented and the escape from it in the 80s. That history may repeat itself in this way is unforgivable. I learned a lot of information about the more political topics such as unions, centralised banking, economic repercussions, and while I've always known minimum wage is a joke used to placate the masses, that chapter was very enlightening. My favourite chapters though were the one on "The Socialist Roots of Fascism".I had figured this out on my own several years ago but finding a well-written concise essay such as this was refreshing. Secondly,the chapter on the socialised public school system was very well put-together. As a believer in alternative education and the voucher system, this chapter again sends me to other people to read and quotes to remember. An excellent book that should be read by anyone of any age who wonders what's wrong with socialism and certainly by the youth entering the adult, voting public so they can learn the history of this ideology which falsely presents itself as charming to the "working" class. I underlined so many passages and added so many notes to the book, I'm bound to be referencing it many times.

[Sandra · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is more an indoctrination pamphlet for already converted than a good attempt to put together a well-supported set of arguments. My issue is not with the topic (I do believe that socialism always ends up sucking terribly in any real life implementation), but with the author's argument style.

[Beth Haynes · Rating 2 out of 5]

If you agree, doesn't add much. If you disagree, not very convincing.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

UPDATE: This is one of those books I find worth re-reading periodically especially when I see parallel developments in the United States causing concern for where we are heading. The author covers the socialist movement and how it relates to Communism and its cousin National Socialism aka Nazism! Those who are opposed to Capitalism and would like to turn America into a socialist state that would eventually devolve into a communist state have enough radical leftists in place in all three branches of our government to be able to do some serious damage to the founding principles of our country; in the near future you may not recognize America as the country the whole world looks to for a better future. We may have to start looking elsewhere for a better life in the near future.

This was a great book for understanding the roots of socialism as well as its history. It also points out how fascism is essentially a derivative of socialism started by Mussolini’s Italy of the 1920s and 1930s. It was then taken up by the German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party, better known as the Nazis. It has since been twisted and misapplied as right wing when in reality it is a version of left wing socialism. It clears up a lot of misunderstandings about what socialism is and does. This would make a great required reading for our schools.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

H. L. Mencken once wrote: “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable.”

This book is highly recommended for anyone who thinks they have been duped by the powers that be. The book is not filled with scholarly economic jargon, it's laid out so that you understand the history of economic decisions made to introduce socialism (Surprise... America is a well on its way) and their repercussions, which are to many to number.
The author defends the free market principles and how they are mislabeled and applied by progressives, against the socialist who has no argument from economic reality just the old "good intentions" motto that has caused enough unnecessary suffering for humanity.
Just about all the major silly statements you hear floating around social media, the news, from Politicians, the classrooms and where ever else luminaries loom are succinctly answered in a way that causes you to question everything you've been told. There are other books that address the issue deeper but this is great platform to take a detour from the standard models we currently stagnate under!

[Jeremy · Rating 1 out of 5]

One of the worst books I've read. This book is first an foremost a political manifesto, not an economics textbook. Nevertheless, it would have still been appreciated to have a some academic rigor. DiLorenzo utilizes a litany of strawmen, anecdotes, and truisms to defend his theory - socialism bad, libertarianism good. Similiar points have been articulated much better by others. (Friedman, Sowell, etc.) Don't waste your time with this one.

[Mina sardari · Rating 4 out of 5]

اگر شما هم مثل من دانشی از اقتصاد ندارید و از شنیدن برنامه های پنج ساله و دولت رفاه و بیمه پزشکی همگانی و... خسته شدید و معنای اونهارو متوجه نمیشید این کتاب میتونه کمکتون کنه. برای من بدون هیچ پیش زمینه ای ( به جز مناظره های اخیر که در یوتوب پخش میشه و شنیدن برنامه هایی از دولت) کاملا قابل فهم بود.
این کتاب به اسم مشکل سوسیالیسم از نشر پیله منتشر شده
از متن کتاب:
تجربه می گوید، هر زمان که دولت ها از عبارت "رقابت منصفانه"استفاده می کنند ، کافی است عبارت " بدون رقابت" را جایگزین آن کنیم تا معنای واقعی آن را درک کنیم.

[Matt Rupert · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book really makes a few good arguments but everyone of those were made better by others, elsewhere. Instead, this book makes grand, often universal, claims and backs them up only with single examples that fail to warrant the conclusions the author wants to draw.

The history of socialism is replete with problems, but the banal propagandizing this book undertakes is embarrassing. Rather than present a straightforward critique of socialism, the author prefers to insult his reader with hasty generalizations, unwarranted conclusions, and anachronistic or mischaracterized examples.

[Byrthe · Rating 1 out of 5]

"The Problem with Socialism" reads less like a serious exploration of economic or political theory and more like a superficial political manifesto. The author presents oversimplified arguments, relying on basic and outdated economic ideas such as the notion that “competition between businesses benefits consumers.” This claim ignores the real-world dynamics of corporate consolidation, where large firms buy out or outcompete smaller, more ethical businesses, ultimately reducing choice and enabling monopolistic price-setting.

The book’s political analysis is equally shallow. For example, the author attributes poverty and corruption in post-colonial African countries to socialism, without acknowledging the deep structural impact of colonial exploitation or the ongoing economic interference of Western powers. By framing complex historical and geopolitical realities in such simplistic terms, the author undermines his own credibility.

Overall, The Problem with Socialism fails to deliver a meaningful critique of socialism or a convincing defence of capitalism. It cherry-picks examples and uses various strawmen to fit a predetermined ideological narrative rather than offering any nuanced or evidence-based analysis.

[Stephen Morrison · Rating 1 out of 5]

Garbage propaganda full of misleading claims and outright lies. Not a serious critique by any means and only convincing for the already convinced. An unfunny joke of a book.

[Christopher Lawson · Rating 5 out of 5]

In THE PROBLEM WITH SOCIALISM, Thomas DiLorenzo, an economics professor at Loyola University in Maryland, presents the arguments--both theoretical as well as practical, why socialism inevitably fails.

The "Problem" suggested in the title is actually a trifold problem, covering three practical obstacles to socialism, which the author terms: INCENTIVE, KNOWLEDGE, and CALCULATION. The author cites concrete examples to illuminate each of the three. I confess I only knew of the first issue.

**INCENTIVE PROBLEM**
The author shows an early instance of the "incentive problem" by looking at the American pilgrims--especially the settlement at Jamestown. Their early form of government was a disaster. This happened because "all of the pilgrims were indentured servants who had no financial stake in the fruits of their own labor." Later, when the settlers became property owners, things changed drastically. Then, "each man realized that by loafing or shirking, he was paying the full cost of such behavior in the form of lost profits. At the same time, everyone realized that increased effort led to increased rewards."

**KNOWLEDGE PROBLEM**
In any business, there are complex processes necessary to make the business succeed. Citing a sample pizza store as an example, we see that there are countless supplies required in order for this business to operate. In capitalism, no one needs to "plan" these systems out; rather, numerous businesses compete to provide the services and goods needed. The store can sell pizzas "without any government 'planner' consciously dictating how to make pizzas, how many to make, or where pizza parlors should be located."

In socialism, there must needs be lots of "planners" to make this happen. But how could that work? It doesn't, suggests Professor Dilorenzo: "No government planner or group of government planners with the most powerful computers available could conceivably possess and utilize all of the constantly changing information that is needed to produce even the most common and simple consumer goods." Nobel prize-winning Hayek called this mistake the “fatal conceit "of socialism."

**CALCULATION PROBLEM**
In capitalism, business owners make decisions on goods and labor based on actual market prices. In socialism, however, there is no true foundation for such decisions--it's all about "plans," which may or may not be valid. Therefore, decisions are inevitably wrong: "Under socialism, where government owns all the means of production and capital “markets” are nonexistent, and resources are allocated by bureaucrats to meet 'plans' that might have no basis in economic reality."

The author makes an interesting point about the practical impact of socialism. It doesn't matter if you are fairly elected to promote socialism, or whether you instituted the system by force: "In either case everyone in society is subjected to the coercive forces of the state in enforcing its plans for the whole society." For example, the latest health care law in the U.S. will "have the same effect on American society whether it was imposed by democratic politics or by a dictator."

The professor points out the ultimate dilemma a socialist leader will face. When things begin to go south, a statesman can either admit failure, or switch methods, and forcefully continue the failed approach: "The democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans and admitting failure."

All in all, I found THE PROBLEM WITH SOCIALISM to be a serious, profound read--albeit a bit of a tough read. Do not expect to just breeze through this book. There is a LOT to mull over here; the issue are not trivial "soundbites," but rather, they are arguments worthy of serious consideration and study.

Advance Review Copy courtesy of Edelweiss Book Distributors.

[Matthew Sutcliffe · Rating 1 out of 5]

So seldom I have ever been inclined to pause an audiobook as frequently as this, but I found myself making notes on the countless laughable and ridiculous comments made throughout. One could write a review that rebukes all the erroneous points the author makes but frankly such a response would be as long as the book itself and I think it suffices to simply share some of highlights among the drivel in this book.

Right off the bat, the author gives the awful impression that he has never read so much as a sentence of WWII history by stating that "fascism is a type of socialism" and that the Nazis were socialist. (Presumably the author assumes this hilariously incorrect latter point merely because "socialist" is in the Nazi's full name, which shows about as much inquiry as one who assumes a zebra crossing must be a stripey African mammal). How gobsmacked the author will be when he one day discovers the Nazi's driving contempt for the socialists.

At another point the author implies that any teachings against socialism is often disallowed in socialist countries. Meanwhile, one can't help but wonder if this man has ever heard of a little thing called McCarthyism.

He also goes on to quite explicity state that he believes people don't have a right to free education, nor free healthcare. I have no words for this one.

Later, he suggests that trying to fix the system to alieviate poverty is less effective and less desirable than relying on charity (in part because it results in a less "community" atmosphere). He seems not to comprehend the obvious - that a system reliant on charity is a broken one.

He also states that socialism leads to more births out of wedlock, as though people choosing not to get married is a bad thing. And then doubles down by mentioning some statistics about how, in such countries, fewer children live in a heterosexual 2-parent household, as though that too is a bad thing.

He hilariously suggests that socialised healthcare is a bad idea, because as we can all clearly see the US health system (the only one in the developed world that isn't in any way socialised) is the prime beacon of a functioning health system. He also states, contrary to the evidence, that socialised healthcare is not affordable, when in fact the US pay enormously more on healthcare per capita than any other country.

In a chapter titled to the effect of "how socialism causes pollution", he states "businesses in a capitalist economy actually have strong incentives to preserve natural resources." I hope the silliness of this comment is implicit.

Predictably, he also constantly refers to the soviet union throughout the book, using it as his convenient quintessential example of a socialist country. While he's at it, he may as well constantly refer to the egg-laying platypus when describing the behaviour of mammals.

He says also that minimum wage is unjust to workers, especially low skilled workers, who have now lost their one competitive bargaining chip. Rightio, I suppose he expects "will work for £3 an hour" to be atop everyone's CV then?

As I say, it would take a very lengthy review indeed to respond to all of the author's claims in this book, but hopefully the handful highlighted above get the point across. This is a dreadfully misinformed, ahistorical book that neither understands what socialism is nor pieces together causes with effects in any believable way. I would urge anyone considering reading this book to instead read the graffiti in a public toilet - it would be both more entertaining and more insightful that what Mr DiLorenzo has to offer. And in turn, I would urge the author to please read a history book... literally ANY history book.

[Matthew Lipson · Rating 1 out of 5]

While shelving books at my job, I came across this title. I automatically crinkled my nose, and was about to put it on the shelf without a backward glance when I realized that I was not being open minded enough. Maybe there was something in it that I hadn't thought about. Plus, after reading a feminist tract that was pro-socialism, I thought the only fair thing to do was read something from the other side, which is something I have found the pro-capitalist side rarely does. Most of the generation having gone through WWII and grown up in the 1950s drank the Kool-Aid of their era and are completely unwilling to hear other options. I find socialists, in this country, are willing to look at the failings of Communist style socialism with an eye to finding ways to correct it or go a different direction.

Then there's this book. DiLorenzo's hatred and poor understanding of politics and government come through often. He goes from talking about how Capitalism conserves the environment to how the public school system is nothing but a money sink. Often he talk out of both sides of his mouth, especially when talking about government's role in the system. Citing the Michigan water pollution scandal, he almost applauds industry for their actions, while shaming government for not doing their job and telling industry what to do. If his previous assertion were true about capitalists caring about conserving the environment, there should be no need for the government, local or federal, to have to step in and regulate anything. In this case the capitalist industry looked for the easiest, least costly way to deal with their waste and added their pollution to a waterway that was essential to the residents of Michigan. Yet, he still is able to say that government regulation is an overstep leading to an every growing lazy behemoth called Government. Then there is education. Somehow, for him, capitalist competition adds to a better education system and that it all should be privatized. His misunderstanding of private education is unbelievable. He starts off by stating that it is out for profit. Here he is blatantly wrong. Private education on the whole is what is called Not-For-Profit. They have to spend 52% of their gross to maintain that status. Then there is comparing of grades. A public school, by law, has to retain students and try their best to educate them to a C or better. Private education has no such standard. Indeed, they are driven to create students of A quality who can get into top 10 schools to maintain their attraction to future families. Thus, private schools will kindly ask families to remove their students if the student is not performing to the school's standards.

DiLorenzo is truly blinded by his hatred, anger, and biases to look objectively at the subject he is trying to address. A realist would state and realize neither system is perfect or the only way to do things. Often these systems are misinterpreted by their practitioners, who are blinded by the propaganda they have been fed from their childhood on. This has been only been made worse by the failure of the biggest proponents of Marxist systems, a theory that is very flawed. I say this as a dyed in the wool Socialist, but I like to think that I try to look at things in a more realistic and balanced light. This is why I picked up this book. Unfortunately it did not open my eyes to anything new. Unreasoning, unbalanced hatred is no place to write a book like this.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book about how bad socialism is, and how great capitalism is. He is absolutely right that complete socialism (communism) takes away ownership of private property and factors of production. Central government ownership suffers from the 1) reward problem- why work hard if you can't keep the rewards and 2) knowledge problem - how can planners plan anything when demands, technology and tastes change?

He also attacks Scandinavian socialism, arguing that they were rich and then they develop the egalitarian socialist state, and they are now turning more market-oriented. This I need to verify.

He argues that only capitalism works, as when people own their stuff they take good care of it, and government regulation always distorts things and blows up the 'bureaucracy'. I however wonder how anyone is going to own our clean air or clean ocean; unregulated capitalism will surely lead to pollution since it costs nothing for firms to dump stuff into nature.

He also argues that minimum wage is a ploy for the unionised workers to prevent young people, the unskilled immigrants and the discriminated minority to find a foothold in employment, for else employers will not hire them. That is... how should I put it... rather terrible. We are still not very sure of whether the minimum wage is really that bad. Thank goodness we have anti-discrimination laws.

Ok I get it. Capitalism is probably the best in creating wealth. However we do need regulation to promote competition, and to protect the commons, and the vulnerable. Nevertheless I do agree that communism is probably the worst economic system, and that is why evan our communist countries do not practise it anymore.

[Roger Leonhardt · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Someone has to pay. Most of the time it is YOU!

If the Left offers free college, free food, free health care, etc - you will pay for it.

Think of this - all officials in Washington D.C. are living off of government assistance. None really have a job. They spend their days trying to make up more rules for you and I to do, while exempting themselves and their staff. They are living off of government handouts. Most have never had a real job. They lived off of daddy's trust fund until elected to office where they now live off of us. If someones never worked a private job, they should never be in office (i.e. Obama, etc.)

To sum up what needs to be done in Washington:

Leave me alone! Let me live my life, worship my God, love my wife, raise my kids, and work my job!

I am done with my rant :)

[Ned · Rating 5 out of 5]

Socialists hate this book

Well sourced and well argued, Thomas DiLorenzo shreds socialist myths using mere reality. Socialism can't bear the weight of reality, scrutiny, fairness or justice and is only able to advance by means of lies, propaganda, and exploitation of human selfishness. Capitalists serve humanity, socialists enslave it. Read this book before a wicked socialist bans it.

[Alvin Setiawan · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is cringy as fuck. I am not even a socialism supporter. It feels like reading an article written after collating a bunch of Instagram comments written by republican supporter. To much oversimplification. Some examples are questionable. I hope the author elaborate more so reader could have better grasp of the discussed topic.

[Ethan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I do not support socialism myself so I picked up this book for the purpose of being able to further build my arguments against the economic system. However, I found The Problem with Socialism to be lacking, and parts of the evidence were questionable like somewhat outdated statistics. Thomas DiLorenzo uses a combination of statistics, history, and writings by well-known economists. He starts with why socialism is a relevant topic today showing polls of large support for the economic system which is a good opening; however, the book is weak with persuasion of the group supporting socialism. The cover itself has a man with a long nose which I interpreted as a comparison of Pinocchio to socialists. He further cuts off socialists by attacking their lead figures for dishonesty and deception. He states that it's unknown how much money goes to what programs mentioning LGBT+ celebrations implying, but not explicitly saying, that celebration of LGBT+ communities is a waste of money. This alienates another group, and it's a rather false statement since there are government websites which display their spending budgets on the various programs. Then, anyone on the other side of the argument is treated with an almost condescending attitude when he states, "Does anyone really believe that turning any industry into a tax-financed, Department-of-Motor-Vehicles-style, government-run monopoly...will make things cheaper...?" It almost seems that he has never bothered considering the counterarguments of the situation. These occur on the first few pages of the book which makes persuasion difficult when DiLorenzo seems to attack these groups before the main arguments even start. And he constantly isolates socialists throughout the book painting them as the villain.

He follows up with examples of past failures and references these past failures in almost every chapter, but he tends to reference the most extreme events such as the Soviet Union and Communist China. There are multiple issues with that. First, anyone lacking knowledge of the topic could easily have misunderstanding because the two governments were commonly associated with communism. Second, for those aware of the topic, although communism and socialism share ideologies, communism is a more extreme branch of socialism; however, he never makes the differentiation. In fact, he seems to treat the two systems as one and the same which either creates more misunderstanding or raises questions about his research on the issue at hand which is the feeling I happened to hold. He does reference more moderate examples such as Britain adopting certain socialist reforms, but his focus still remains far too much on the extreme events. It's hard to truly see how the events in extreme cases compare to moderate socialism.

He also lacks mention of the counter argument. While he has a section titled, "The Myth of Successful Scandinavian Socialism," it's near the middle of the book, and it would serve much better to have small counter arguments after each section. The first main point, "Why Socialism is Always and Everywhere an Economic Disaster," begins with, "Socialism in all its forms has always been poisonous to economic growth a prosperity." DiLorenzo then mentions several occurrences of how and why small-scale and large-scale socialism failed, and he explains these topics very well. His use of analogies and not overly complex economic jargon makes the events easy to understand. But I myself was thinking early on, "Well, I hear these events about socialism being successful in northern Europe. So what's going on there?" However, I'm left asking myself this question until the middle of the book, and it's a bit of an unsatisfactory answer since it only glances at why these countries are seen as prosperous focusing more on why socialism is bad. And the point that nagged me the most is how he states that a socialist education system is ineffective, but he never addresses why the number one education system is commonly the socialist country Finland.

A quick, final flaw I've had with the book is how he has a section dedicated to fascism being a form of socialism. He makes it seem as though socialism is characterized by fascism, but in reality, fascism was a case of one of the most extreme forms of socialism. To say that fascism is an issue consistent throughout socialism is like saying the last brick at the top of the pyramid holds the whole structure together.

While these flaws are blatant in my eyes, he develops his central argument terrifically. He does what he claims. He states the problem with socialism, and he does it well. He uses simplified analogies that explain the issues such as a noncompetitive market through a socialized grocery store, or how everyone depends on a specialist to produce something such as to make a pizza, you need dough made of wheat which must be farmed which requires tools and machines to harvest which needs parts to build and so on. These really help even those with little to no knowledge of economics to truly understand the message he tries to push. And although some of his evidence is questionable, just as much evidence is powerful in supporting his argument. DiLorenzo's analysis of past of events is, more often than not, powerful but easy to interpret. He is also able to show the effects of the socialist policies in effect in the United States and how socialism can actually affect our society. His use of qualified economists as well as a list of sources does help alleviate some doubts I had about his credibility.
Overall, his book wouldn't be terrific for persuasion. His lack of counter arguments is a flagrant issue that I couldn't ignore, and too often did I find myself questioning the credibility of his information whether it was outdated or too extreme to compare. To be fair, his book was meant to assess the problems of socialism, but I found myself wondering too often about the other side and why they say otherwise. I support the idea of capitalism myself, but reading this, I couldn't help but feel unsatisfied with the content and format of the book. I definitely learned something, but not enough for fulfillment. I think his messages can easily be found more effectively in other sources. His approach is far too abrasive closing it off to many people. DiLorenzo's explanation of his point are easy to understand for those with little understanding, but other than that, I feel like even though it was a short read, the time could have been used much more productively on books and articles with stronger authority as well as answers to the multitude of questions this book left me with.

[Jessica More · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am trying to read more non-fiction this year and this did not set me up for success.

I unfortunately had to give this two stars because 1) the were some interesting theories and stories I had not heard of/considered and 2) I was able to finish the book.

Realistically I would give it a 1.5 because of how frustrated I felt.

Minus three stars because it was an evil pro-capitalist indoctrination attempt. I think if you’re already relatively conservative in your thinking this will affirm your existing beliefs but for someone who doesn’t already possess these values it was a mediocre attempt to change my mind.

I understand that all systems have their flaws and I do agree with the fact socialism has its limitations but my major issue was with the way the author wrote. Using “whatnot” and “so forth” and incredibly long winded examples to ‘prove’ a half-baked argument is incredibly unconvincing and makes the author sound unsure of the point he intends to make. Many claims made in this book were major sweeping statements and the ‘evidence’ used fails to back them up.

Some of the sections were undeniably infuriating - the claim that people don’t have rights to free or subsidised healthcare and education and that outcomes for education and health in low socioeconomic areas are often poorer than wealthy
areas…do I need to explain why this is an insane thing to say?

He claims that capitalists / big business owners are incentivised to protect natural resources…as if we have seen this ever.

Also the fact that we shouldn’t create a higher minimum wage because it ‘prices workers out of the job market, demanding more for their services than they are likely to produce for an employer in profit’ - here’s an idea, could employers be less greedy and pay their workers a liveable wage?
And don’t get me started on the ‘disproportionate unemployment rates among POC youth and how it leads to crime’

Rather than a rational critique of a system, the author constantly insults and provides unreasonable generalisations of many groups and doesn’t present solid evidence to WHY we see these statistics.

If support to alleviate poverty has to rely on charity and volunteering, the system does not work.

Would only recommend if you are a money hungry freak but would definitely skip if you are even slightly likeminded to myself.

[Eric · Rating 1 out of 5]

It wasn't very good. Whether you consider it as a polemic or an exposition, it isn't very good at either. There's a lot wrong with this book, but these are the main things:

1. The presentations of the arguments of Hayek and von Mises (which were the best bits) were often pretty poor, simplifying the arguments to character assassinations. When it was done well, it was very accessible, using simple language, but I find it impossible to believe that neo-classical economics is based on pathologising socialists in the way that this book does. Not all of the book was like this, but a lot was. I would estimate about half.

2. Socialism is poorly defined in this book. Sometimes it is so broad as to cover everything from the USSR to modern capitalist nations like the UK and Canada. DiLorenzo often takes socialism to simply be when the government does things. As an example, the Fed is counted as a socialist institution. However, when arguing against socialism, he often swaps to a very narrow view that is far easier to argue against. It's quite surprising that he does this, as he points out the left wing politicians do this when talking about capitalism.

3. There is a complete failure to engage with different perspectives. Given that the perspectives he is arguing against are often essentially Keynsian, not socialist, you would expect Keynes to come up at least once, but he doesn't. This point goes hand in hand with the fact that theoretical considerations are very thin on the ground. As a result, the discussions of any kind of theory is often very simplistic and idealistic. By idealistic, I mean that they are based on very big assumptions about markets and behaviour that can't be supported.

4. The standard of evidence is very low in places. Examples are citing right wing think tanks without mentioning their bias, citing blog posts and news articles in the place of academic writing and studies, making contentious claims without citing anything, and giving citations that are impossible to follow up on. One example of the last point is simply citing www.TaxFoundation.org for the claim that Americans spend a third of their working time earning money that will go towards paying taxes. I was unable to find this claim on their website.

I read this book to try to better understand why libertarians believe what they believe. While this book has given me a better insight into the mindset of some libertarians, I still feel that I have little to no understanding of how such an ideology can be justified, as the justifications given by this book are generally simplistic and poorly supported. I would recommend that libertarians looking for justification and discussion of their views, and others who are looking to understand libertarianism would be better off reading something else.

[Rahul · Rating 3 out of 5]

First of all, I am a centrist and a supporter of welfare state but also supports issues that are important in national interest. So I have middle ground towards the idea of socialism. I am always open to the ideas that improve quality of human lives, whether it comes from any political wing.

There are three problems with any from of economic/governing system , it is human beings insatiable greed, extremist ideas and hunger for power. This is what led to utopia like idea of socialism turn into disastrous communism and similarly it is making capitalism turning monstrous to the bottom half of the world, democracy and environment.

Idea of socialism has transformed from what it was originally during Soviet Union, it has intertwined with idea of capitalism and Scandinavian countries are best examples of this type of socio-capitalism.

This book tries to picturise every idea of socialism as complete evil, but it isn't. I accept that socialism (actually it is our human nature) that had many shortcomings which lead to its failure, but sole capitalism isn't also all good. What we need is a mixture of best of both the ideologies honestly implemented for a better world.

This book shows capitalism as the only perfect economic model, doesn't address its shortcomings and that's what makes this book biased and unfit atleast in my view.

[James Woods · Rating 5 out of 5]

Book provides an excellent explanation of the pitfalls of socialism. deals with all the falsehoods that people assume to be good about socialism. The book covers the negative impact socialism has everywhere it is tried and how it has produced nothing but the equal distribution of poverty. The reality that socialism is praised in our colleges has produced a generation of young people who think that it is a wonderful thing. No one challenges the false hope produced by socialism, so when public officials promote programs based in socialistic theories they sound great to the poorly informed.

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. The author dispels the myths, especially when socialism is enjoying a resurgence. The sections on Scandinavia, pollution and government regulation are especially worthwhile.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dedicated to all the victims of socialism - past, present, and future.

Terrific explanation of socialism and its history around the world. "How remarkable it is that to this day, self-proclaimed socialists in academe claim to occupy the moral high ground. The ideology that is associated with the worst crimes, the greatest mass slaughters, the most totalitarian regimes ever, is allegedly more compassionate than the free market capitalism that has lifted more people from poverty, created more wealth, provided more opportunities for human development, and supported human freedom more than any other economic system in the history of the world." Pg. 62-63. Truly remarkable.

"Socialism has not yet reached a critical stage in the United States, but the more a society moves in the direction of socialism, the more it relies on the coercive powers of the state. As such coercion becomes justified, it tends to expand at the expense of individual freedom and individual conscience. Government plans replace individual plans; the government claims a greater share of private wealth to distribute money as it sees fit; ideological propaganda becomes more pervasive from government institutions, especially in the schools; and the economy becomes progressively more lethargic, increasingly strangled by governmental edicts, regulations, and bureaucrats. Government becomes more and more a government of the worst, by the worst, and for the worst. That’s what socialism delivers." Pg. 63.

"Socialists, of all varieties, tolerate no opposition, allow no competing authorities, and are at continual war with individuals, families, private organizations, churches, businesses, and local and regional authorities that might oppose or interfere with their grand vision for reordering society. Socialists believe in total control." Pg. 76. Sounds like BLM. So does the following....

Truly sad: "The welfare state has also gone a long way toward achieving another goal of many socialists, especially Karl Marx, of the “abolition of the family” (as Marx and Engels advocated in The Communist Manifesto). This is not to say that the architects of the American welfare state wanted to abolish the family, only that their policies have gone a long way toward achieving it. Between 1960 and 2000, out-of-wedlock births increased by more than 400 percent, and a big driver of that, especially in black communities, was that single parenthood brings government benefits.11 In 1950, before “the war on poverty,” about 88 percent of white families and 77 percent of black families in the United States consisted of husband-and-wife households.12 By 1980 the proportion of black families with husband-and-wife households had declined to 59 percent; among white families it was 85 percent. And the numbers continue to get worse. In 1960, 73 percent of kids lived in a traditional two-parent family. In 2013, the number was 46 percent.13 Single mothers are much more likely to be poor mothers; and all too often welfare payments have taken the place of a husband with a job. Just as there is no longer a stigma to accepting welfare and not working, the welfare state has removed the stigma of “illegitimacy” when so many millions of women give birth out of wedlock and receive child support not from fathers but from taxpayers."

And we've all heard the myth of successful Scandinavian socialism. DiLorenzo has a chapter on this very topic, which explains how socialism nearly wrecked Sweden, but free market reforms are finally bringing its economy back from the brink of disaster. "Despite Sweden’s economic recovery after the mid-1990s, socialists might be surprised to learn that it is still poorer than Mississippi, the lowest-income state in the United States. Another surprise for socialists is that Sweden has been privatizing portions of its socialized healthcare, social security, and education sectors; and private health insurance is booming because of the inevitable rationing, shortages, and long wait times of socialized healthcare."

"Ludwig von Mises wrote that socialists had twin strategies to achieve their goals: one was nationalizing industry and property, the other was “destructionism.” Mises defined “destructionism” as “destroying the social order which is based on private ownership.”1 Destructionism can be advanced through, among other means, the welfare state, high taxes, and excessive regulation. It is, for the hardened socialist, a form of social and economic sabotage. Socialists, for instance, can use the welfare state to crowd out private charity, making poor people dependent on socialist government. As Frédéric Bastiat pointed out in the mid-nineteenth century, government welfare programs are “false philanthropy,” undercutting personal charity and creating the assumption that “government” will take care of that." Pg. 84. Frédéric Bastiat was an incredible writer, by the way.

It is very sad to see more and more churches direct their members to government welfare instead of relying on their own private programs. "Take away the charitable functions of these institutions, churches, clubs, and whatnot, said Murray, and “you take away the community” itself. The welfare state has done a very good job of destroying voluntary neighborhood and community efforts to help the poor, rendering many low-income families dependent on government handouts not for a short while but for generations, as an entitlement, a reward for having children out of wedlock and without a job. Pg. 87-88.

"Taking the advice of socialist politicians like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders to vastly increase the size of the welfare state is bound to increase poverty; increase the incidence of child pathologies; increase the number of children who get involved in crime; increase human misery; and discourage effective, private, voluntary efforts to help the poor. No one, not even the bureaucrat, really benefits when socialism deconstructs society. In its human costs, socialism makes us all losers." Pg. 92.

"One reason why Marx and other socialists advocated (and advocate) a discriminatory income tax that penalizes productivity by taxing higher incomes at progressively higher tax rates is their denial of the reality of human inequality. In a capitalist economy, those who are more skilled at serving their fellow man by providing him with valued goods and services will earn higher incomes than those with fewer skills. No two human beings are ever “equal” in that regard. The ideal of a “progressive” income tax is to create greater “equality” by treating people unequally. It is the exact opposite of the fundamental principal of fairness in a free society, which is equality under the law. A progressive income tax is a policy of inequality under the law. If you’re a socialist, exploiting envy is a great way to destabilize a capitalist society." Pg. 123.

"Capitalism encourages upward mobility. It is socialism and welfare that keeps the “working class,” or the nonworking class, stuck at subsistence level wages or benefits. In the twentieth century, nearly everyone in the Soviet Union or socialist Eastern Europe lived in poverty by western standards, while the socialist ruling elite enjoyed lives of privilege. As usual, Marx got it backwards: capitalism is the driving force of economic advancement for the working class; socialism impoverishes the working class." Pg. 125.

Thank heaven for federalism! "Felix Morley, author of Freedom and Federalism, wrote that “Socialism and federalism are necessarily political opposites because the former demands that centralized concentration of power which the latter by definition denies.” In contrast, all of the worst tyrants in world history were impassioned enemies of decentralized political power. Adolf Hitler himself devoted an entire chapter of Mein Kampf to a vitriolic denunciation of federalism and states’ rights in Germany. Hitler denounced the alleged “fragmentation” and “impotence” of the “so-called sovereign states” and praised his predecessors for all but abolishing state sovereignty or states’ rights in Germany. He considered this to be a great victory in what he called the 'struggle between federalism and centralization.'" Pg. 133.

[Joseph R. · Rating 4 out of 5]

A more apt title for this might be "The Problems with Socialism" as it describes the historical, economic, and philosophical failings of the governing model taken primarily from Marx and Engel's The Communist Manifesto.

The twentieth century is full of examples of failed socialist government, the most infamous examples being the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Both countries governments took over most of their nation's industries or created so many regulations that, in practical effect, they ran those industries. The Soviets had access to large amounts of natural resources and could last longer without resorting to taking over other countries (which they got away with as much as the could during the Cold War). The people weren't subjects of the state, they were subjected to its demands. Venezuela was an economic disaster. China still has massive human rights problems. The author even examines problems in the Scandinavian countries where socialist like to claim success.

While "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a noble sentiment, the practical effect of establishing it on a national level is to suppress productivity. If a worker is not rewarded for extra effort or achievement or ability with a higher salary or other benefits, how motivated would anyone be to work harder? If someone with more technical abilities is paid the same as an unskilled laborer (the imposition of equality on the workers), how likely is someone to seek out abilities or use them? The problem is exacerbated in a socialist government where the means of production are all run by the government. The government basically establishes a monopoly with no competition to spur on creativity or frugality in producing goods and services. Instead, industries develop a top-heavy bureaucracy that is slow to implement change or raise standards.

A national economy is large and has many intricate interconnections, more than can be managed by any bureaucracy. Often, the bureaucrats work in their own self-interest, creating the typical socialist strata--the people and the government or governing party. While the people have to scrape by on the subsistence existence of "each according to his need," the ruling class lives a much better life. The practical result is the Orwellian "all men are equal, but some are more equal than others."

The book is an interesting analysis of all sorts of flaws in socialist thinking and governing. It's a little light on acknowledging the problems with capitalism. The focus is more on how capitalism is falsely depicted by socialists and how capitalism provides a lot more to people and the economy than socialism even could. His arguments that socialist countries get by on the wealth previously generated is not quite convincing. On the other hand, he's got it right about the false understanding of human nature that cripples any practical implementation of socialism.

Recommended.

[Pastor Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good work and a good read, but it's short. You may ask, what more should be said? Well, after you read this one, get Rand Paul's, "The Case Against Socialism."

I bought this hot off the press (as I am buying DiLorenzo's July 2020, "The Problem With Lincoln") and devoured it.

If you home school, read a chapter a day with each child (7th grade or higher) and discuss the content so that you know that your kid won't become another under 30 voter who thinks like a Libtard and votes for Socialists, at least not without your solid efforts to direct them toward educated, informed, Constitutional conservatism.

[Joshua Simangunsong · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book will lay down the foundational problems of Socialism, which I think is great, but the only purpose that this book can offer since there are biases. So, take this book with a grain of salt and come with an open mind. Thomas DiLorenzo will make glaring statements that will hopefully cause you to disagree, "government enterprise promotes the skills of mass coercion and bureaucratic submission." Yes, the government has its inefficiencies, but these are regulations, laws, and rules, are necessary to regulate thus the "coercion". The market cannot be entirely free or there will be a rise of crooks being rewarded. One could argue that the market will punish these crooks, naturally, but these rules were put into place first allowing the market to punish these crooks. Therefore, I disagree with this statement that DiLorenzo made, plus more. Generally, I think I disagree a lot of his statements because of how he structures his argument; it tends to be binary and he doesn't take the situation in a 360-degree view.

However, these statements shouldn't be a surprise because he does identify himself as an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics as they hold more libertarian views. There will be a stint of contempt against the government and advocate of a more free market system.

My advice: Come with an open mind since there are indoctrinating statements.

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

In some ways this book does what it tried to do, but it sits on presuppositions of the opposing side, and those presuppositions lead to obviously wrong comments and appeals to disinterested parties.

Rothbard et al established who libertarians should appeal to, years ago. DiLorenzo is aware of this, but ignores it in this book. We can't argue for principles on the basis that they'll help people who work against our aims and will never buy what we're selling. We especially can't do it with arguments that ignore variety in continuous traits.

[Britton · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book needs to be taught in every school. It strips each argument for socialism apart piece by piece until all that remains is a clear incompetent economic strategy. If you read this book and still believe socialism works, you need to go retake an economics class.