The Case Against Socialism

by Rand Paul, Kelley Paul (Narrator)

A recent poll showed 43 percent of Americans think more socialism would be a good thing. What do these people not know?

Socialism has killed millions, but it’s now the ideology du jour on American college campuses and among many leftists. Reintroduced by leaders such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the ideology manifests itself in starry-eyed calls for free-spending policies like Medicare-for-all and student loan forgiveness.

In The Case Against Socialism, Rand Paul outlines the history of socialism, from Stalin’s gulags to the current famine in Venezuela. He tackles common misconceptions about the “utopia” of socialist Europe. As it turns out, Scandinavian countries love capitalism as much as Americans, and have, for decades, been cutting back on the things Bernie loves the most.

Socialism’s return is only possible because many Americans have forgotten the true dangers of the 20th-century’s deadliest ideology. Paul reveals the devastating truth: For every college student sporting a Che Guevara T-shirt, there’s a Venezuelan child dying of starvation. Desperate refugees flee communist Cuba to escape oppressive censorship, rationed food and squalid hospitals, not "free" healthcare. Socialist dictatorships like the People’s Republic of China crush freedom of speech and run massive surveillance states while masquerading as enlightened modern nations. Far from providing economic freedom, socialist governments enslave their citizens. They offer illusory promises of safety and equality while restricting personal liberty, tightening state power, sapping human enterprise and making citizens dependent on the dole.

If socialism takes hold in America, it will imperil the fate of the world’s freest nation, unleashing a plague of oppressive government control. The Case Against Socialism is a timely response to that threat and a call to action against the forces menacing American liberty.

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

11 pages, Audible Audio

First published October 15, 2019

About the author

U.S. Senator Rand Paul lives in Bowling Green, Kentucky with his wife and three children. He has been a practicing ophthalmologist for seventeen years. His run for the US Senate representing Kentucky was his first bid for political office. He is the son of Ron Paul, Texas congressman and 2008 Republican Presidential candidate.

Reviews

[Amora · Rating 4 out of 5]

I guarantee that this book will become just as memorable as Barry Goldwater’s book on conservatism. I saw Paul’s interview with John Stossel on YouTube over this book and it got me interested enough to check it out from the library. It was worth waiting two months for this book to be ready at the library.

This is actually my first book I’ve read from a politician that I’ve given four stars. Paul put a decent amount of research into this and shared some of his own personal experience talking with people such as Joseph Stiglitz in Congress.

[Alex · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was hoping to gain some perspective and knowledge from someone with a different point of view. Unfortunately this book is nothing more than propaganda. Where many writers will use peer reviewed research published in scientific journals or reputable scholars from prestigious universities in political writing like these, Paul uses Fox News correspondents and information gathered by right wing thing tanks like the Cato institute.

Paul also focuses on socialist countries with authoritarian leaders or dictatorships while completely ignoring the benefits of socialist policies in thriving countries in Europe, seemingly in an attempt to misinform readers who are unfamiliar with these facts. Paul attempts to create the irrational fear that implementing socialist policies in the US will turn the US into Venezuela. If you understand logic or statistics, or even the basic idea that correlation isn’t causation, it’s easy to see the issues with Paul’s line of thinking.

The end of the book is a long and strange rant that has nothing to do with socialism but rather, is a partisan diatribe on various hot button political issues; climate change, mags hat kid at the Washington monument, and then a really strange part about getting a parking ticket. The end got weird.


If you’re looking to have your current views confirmed, you’d probably be more willing to overlook the glaring reliability issues with this book. If you’re looking to gain perspective on a different set of views, I would imagine a different writer would be far more convincing and educating than Paul.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

In an attempt to keep my brain sharp, I turned to this tome by current US Senator Rand Paul, which seeks to dispel any notion that socialism ought to creep onto American shores. The title alone depicts the negativity that is to be found in the book and Paul did not disappoint, tossing in anecdotes and stories that would support his views, but failing to balance the discussion, though this is to be expected. From the outset, the reader is in for quite a ride, as the opening pages explore the Venezuelan socialist president’s close assassination and what Paul feels has been done to the country under the leftist ideology. Paul’s vilification does not stop there, though for the first part of the book, this exploration of South and Latin American countries and their dictators leaves the reader wondering if Paul spun the globe and let the text bemoan the area on which his pointer finger landed. Looking at the economic downside of socialism, Paul rambles on about how this ideology will only lead to those on the left getting the ‘economic disparity’ loop closed, which would be tragic for Americans. Paul touts that rather than attacking the rich for more of their money, society should allow everyone to prosper. He cites how much better off Americans are on the lower part of the economic spectrum than even a century ago and calls any notion of bridging the gap as simply a tool to punish the (‘meritocratic’?) rich, rather than allowing the system to add more to the coffers of the middle-class. Paul chooses to toss the likes of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez under the proverbial bus for being democratic socialists, as though he wants to vilify them to the reader early and often.

Moving on to explore some of the social aspects of socialism, Paul debunks the common held belief that Scandinavian countries are socialist, citing right of centre leaders who beg for this label to be removed, post haste. Stop for a moment and re-read that last sentence... yes, Paul bases his stance on a party leader who does not hold the view to speak about the history of the political leanings of the country. To ensure the reader remains soured on social democracy, Paul explains that universal medical coverage is clouded over by a system where the citizen is only able to get the types of medication available to all and how horrible it would be to have to be on par with others. Additionally, he cites the atrocity of entrance examinations to post-secondary, where all fees are covered by the government, as being a horrible offence to the public. All this while continuing to explain that ‘Denmark is not socialist and this guy will tell you so’. Something’s rotten here, Senator, and it’s not just your posteriorly-shoved head when it comes to reality.

Perhaps the greatest issue woven into the text of this tome is Paul’s repeated interchanging of ‘socialist’ and ‘communist’, even muddying the waters further by calling national socialism (fascism) the same as Marxist views. Paul pulls names like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, and Mao out to show how horrible the ideal of socialism (both traditional and national) might be. I am not going to sit here and deny that all these men were horrible to their people and used their own bastardised version of socialism to suit them, but there is no balance whatsoever. It is talk of blood, murder, beatings, and thought suppression in the name of the state, missing some of the social balancing that did occur. If we are to use this logic, perhaps we ought to call democracy horrible because of the way President Trump is acting under that ideology. It makes little sense and serves only to add fuel to the fire, but to follow your lead, it seems only fair. As a former student of political science, I can attest that textbook ideologies rarely play out in the real world, but to sit here and harp about the extremism seems to make little sense and serves only as a scare tactic. What about speaking to the governments of Sweden, Canada, Norway, the United Kingdom, and even (gasp) Denmark, all of whom have degrees of socialism that Paul despises? What of their bloodthirsty leaders who killed so many? I suppose it only serves a purpose to speak of the scary monsters and not those who pulled on the reins of power to limit themselves. In a mix of scare tactics and attempts to inculcate the reader with troubles from history, Rand Paul does little but offer up a 21st century Chicken Little story and hopes everyone will hide out long enough for America to remain horrible until 2024.

In the latter portion of the book, Paul injects new rounds of confusion and philosophical arguments to muddy things even further. His citing of Plato, More, and (more recently) the writings of Francis Fukuyama, seek to expose the ridiculous views of socialism and the utopia it claims is within reach. While I applaud the senator for pulling these names out and expounding on their mind numbing orations, it is more distraction than anything, surely the point when grasping at straws. Tossing philosophical mud is all that comes of this, particularly when citing Fukuyama, whose writings about the end of (ideological) history came as the Berlin Wall’s dust was still in the air. Of course the rhetoric and stigma of anti-socialist and communist sentiments seemed strongest at a time when one world superpower was collapsing, though Paul seems to make Fukuyama’s pronouncements to be some heralded foreboding of evils, perhaps centuries before. From there, the narrative moves to the scare tactics that the left and socialists seem to be injecting into the debate, trying to frighten people from the right and centre. While this is all fine and good, Paul shoots himself in the foot as he pushes his conservatism to the extreme and sounds like the child who will not share their ball if the game is not one he chooses. He happily pulls his fearless leader into the mix and tries to show that POTUS and the current Administration is to be lauded for not showing leadership, but rather storming off when things do not go their own way. Whingeing is pathetic to see, but when one reads the excuses that pile up, it is more embarrassing than anything else. Funny, we are to applaud the GOP for being there to watch over all ills for America, but never there when it comes to being a shining example for the world to admire. Then again, what can we expect of a collective more eager to tear things down and destroy anything with a whiff of general wellness for the entire population? I’m no hard-core socialist, but I can see how there are benefits to a mix of the ideological approaches, something that many readers might share, rather than Paul’s incessant fire and brimstone sentiments that seem to emerge when trying to coddle those with the coffers to see him re-elected. Recommended for the open minded and politically savvy reader who is interested in a good laugh, as well as those seeking to see how not to write a persuasive and balanced piece of non-fiction.

I came into this book knowing that I would end up banging my head on the table many times. While I know little about Rand Paul as a person, I could see his Trump sycophancy from a mile away in the early pages of the book. He seeks to tear down anything he can that might offer a left of centre approach any chance of decrying the problems with the current American system and how to fix it. Rather than address disparities, Paul tells the reader to ‘worry about you and not the American whole’, fearing that if anyone were to look past their own nose they could be called a socialist sympathiser. The repetitive attacks on the extremes fills many pages, though I will admit that Paul has paid his researchers well to come up with long-winded and scary tales of the evils found within the most vilified countries who have held the socialist banner high. The book is at least laid out well and the chapters are full of information, even if some barely get started before their conclude, which goes to show that Paul sought content rather than empty rhetoric. I was pleased to have learned so much throughout the book, though the uneven balance and Paul’s clear thesis to vilify leaves me wondering if there were stretches of the truth in order to fit his needs (knowing that no sane reader would check all his sources). While I did find that I gritted my teeth at times and “what the hell”ed out loud as well, I was able to make my way through this book with relative ease. Paul sure can write when he wants to distract the reader from the shiny bauble in their periphery, in hopes of insulting those who are speaking out against a system they find repressive and which exacerbates socio-economic disparity. If he read, I am sure POTUS would be proud and might even offer up a 240 character pat on the back.

Kudos, Senator Paul, for an entertaining and educational look into how some within the GOP will go to extremes to smear and toss mud.

Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/

A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge: https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

[Rêbwar Kurd · Rating 4 out of 5]

در نخستین صفحات تاریخ معاصر، هرجا که پرچم نجاتِ جمعی با هیجان برافراشته شد، سایه‌ای سنگین پشت سرش افتاد؛ سایه‌ای که نامش «آرمان‌های بی‌هزینه» بود. در وعده‌های بزرگ سوسیالیسم، همیشه نوعی خلوص اخلاقی ادعا می‌شود: رهایی کارگر، رفع استثمار، توزیع عادلانه، جامعه‌ای بر پایه برابری. اما همین وعده‌ها، وقتی از متن زندگی روزمره جدا می‌شوند و به دست قدرت سیاسی سپرده می‌شوند، بدل به فشاری می‌شوند که فرد را خرد می‌کند؛ همان‌طور که تاریخ قرن بیستم بارها و بارها نشان داده است.

کافی است به واقعیت‌ها نگاه شود: هرجا که قدرت با نام «عدالت» متمرکز شد، آزادی عقب نشست. هرجا که رهایی طبقه کارگر در ظاهر هدف بود، در عمل دستگاهی شکل گرفت که هیچ نقدی را تاب نمی‌آورد. دولت‌هایی که خود را «نماینده مردم» می‌نامیدند، در نهایت همان مردمی را خاموش کردند که قرار بود برایشان بجنگند. از اردوگاه‌های کار اجباری در سیبری تا انقلاب‌های «خلق‌محور» آمریکای لاتین، از مجارستان دهه پنجاه تا کامبوج دهه هفتاد، ایده‌ای که قرار بود جهان را انسانی‌تر کند، گاه بی‌آنکه خودش بفهمد، به ابزار سرکوب و وحشت تبدیل شد.

مسئله اما صرفاً تاریخی نیست؛ ریشه‌ای فلسفی دارد. هر نظام فکری‌ای که «خیر عمومی» را بالاتر از آزادی فرد قرار دهد، دیر یا زود به این توهم می‌رسد که حقیقت نزد اوست. و آن‌گاه که حقیقت در مشت یک سیستم ایدئولوژیک زندانی شود، سرنوشت مخالف، ناگزیر سکوت است. نقد سوسیالیسم حتی زمانی که از سوی دوستداران آزادی صورت می‌گیرد، به دشمنی با عدالت تعبیر می‌شود؛ در حالی‌که نقد دقیقاً برای نجات همان چیزی است که مدعیان عدالت قربانی‌اش می‌کنند.

در هر دوره‌ای از تاریخ، انسان در برابر وسوسه‌ی ساختن جهانی بی‌نقص زانو زده است؛ جهانی که در آن رنج تقسیم شود، نابرابری از بین برود و قدرت میان همگان به‌طور برابر توزیع شود. اما آنچه از دل این رؤیا بیرون آمده، اغلب نه عدالت که سازوکاری برای حذف فردیت و قربانی‌کردن انسان بوده است. در قلب این تناقض، جدال دیرینه‌ای شکل گرفته میان آزادی فردی و آرمان‌گرایی جمعی؛ جدالی که رند پال در چرا سوسیالیست نیستم آن را با صدایی روشن، بی‌پرده و برآمده از مطالعه تاریخی بازخوانی می‌کند.

در بسیاری از روایت‌های سوسیالیستی، قدرتِ حکومت ابزار موقت «مرحله گذار» تلقی می‌شود. اما در عمل هیچ قدرتی موقت نیست. دولتِ موقتِ سوسیالیستی، همان دولت دائمی است؛ با ساختار بوروکراتیک رشد‌یافته، با شبکه امنیتیِ گسترش‌یافته، و با دستگاه تبلیغاتی‌ای که می‌آموزد چگونه شکست‌ها را پیروزی و فاجعه‌ها را ضرورت تاریخی بنامد. ایدئولوژی، وقتی وارد نهادهای قدرت شود، منطق خودش را تولید می‌کند؛ منطقی که با جهان واقعی کاری ندارد و فقط از خود دفاع می‌کند.

نکته اینجاست که نقد سوسیالیسم دفاع از سرمایه‌داری نیست؛ دفاع از انسان است. دفاع از فردی که زیر چرخ‌دنده‌های هر نظام تمامیت‌خواه له می‌شود؛ چه نامش انقلاب پرولتری باشد، چه نظم جدید، چه نجات خلق. انسان نه در شعارهای بزرگ که در انتخاب‌های کوچک روزانه نفس می‌کشد: اینکه بتواند مخالفت کند، بتواند متفاوت باشد، بتواند بگوید «نه». شاید همین ظرفیت کوچک اما حیاتی است که در بسیاری از نظام‌های سوسیالیستی بالیده نشده و حتی جرم محسوب شده است.

در این میان، همیشه کسانی پیدا می‌شوند که می‌گویند «آنچه شکست خورد، نسخه بد سوسیالیسم بود». اما پرسش اصلی این است: اگر نسخه خوب سوسیالیسم هنوز فقط در خیال وجود دارد، شاید مشکل نه در نسخه‌ها، بلکه در همان بنیانِ فلسفی باشد که می‌پندارد سعادت جمعی را می‌توان از بالا طراحی کرد. تجربه نشان می‌دهد که هر طرحی برای ساختن جامعه آرمانی، اگر به قدرت متمرکز تکیه کند، همان جامعه را از درون می‌پوساند.

این نقد نه برای دفاع از بی‌رحمی سرمایه‌داری است، نه برای توجیه نابرابری. این نقد برای چیزی ساده‌تر است: هشدار نسبت به هر نظامی که می‌گوید «ما حقیقت را می‌دانیم» و مطالبه می‌کند همه با آن حقیقت هم‌قدم شوند. تاریخ به اندازه کافی گفته است که چنین ادعاهایی چگونه پایان می‌یابند.


کتاب با این پرسش بنیادین آغاز نمی‌شود که «سوسیالیسم چه می‌خواهد؟» بلکه با پرسشی سخت‌تر: «سوسیالیسم چه چیزی را به چه بهایی به‌دست می‌آورد؟»
این جابه‌جایی نقطه‌ی شروع، کتاب را از سطح بحث‌های ایدئولوژیک به لایه‌های عمیق‌تری از نقد فلسفه‌ی قدرت می‌برد؛ به جایی که ایده‌ها از روی کاغذ برخاسته و وارد بدن دولت می‌شوند، و آنجا است که رند پال نشان می‌دهد چگونه رؤیاهای ظاهراً انسانی می‌توانند به سازوکارهای کنترل‌گر بدل شوند.


کتاب در شش بخش بنا شده و هر بخش، یکی از ستون‌های فکری و اقتصادی سوسیالیسم را مورد هجوم قرار می‌دهد:

۱. سوسیالیسم تولید فقر می‌کند


۲. اسکاندیناوی محصول سرمایه‌داری است، نه سوسیالیسم


۳. سوسیالیسم و اقتدارگرایی


۴. سوسیالیسم برابری نمی‌آفریند


۵. فلسفه‌ی سوسیالیسم و نقد اخلاقی آن


۶. سوسیالیسم و هشدارگری.


این تقسیم‌بندی نه صرفاً گزارشی تاریخی است و نه مجموعه‌ای از استدلال‌های پراکنده؛ بلکه نقشه‌ای استراتژیک است برای نشان‌دادن اینکه سوسیالیسم، از سطح اقتصاد تا اخلاق، از سیاست تا روان‌شناسی قدرت، چگونه سازوکاری ضد آزادی می‌آفریند.


سوسیالیسم و تولید فقر: وعده‌ای بزرگ، نتیجه‌ای وارونه

رند پال تاریخ را میدان آزمایش ایده‌ها می‌بیند.
وقتی درباره‌ی شوروی، چین مائوئی، ونزوئلای معاصر یا کامبوج پول‌پوت حرف می‌زند، هدفش روایت فجایع نیست؛ بلکه نشان‌دادن الگوی تکرارشونده‌ای است که گویا از سرنوشت نمی‌گریزد:
تمرکز قدرت → محدودسازی بازار → کاهش تولید → قحطی، سرکوب و فروپاشی.

نکته‌های کلیدی این بخش:

سوسیالیسم با ازبین‌بردن انگیزه فردی، به شکل ساختاری دشمن نوآوری است.
کنترل قیمت‌ها، از شوروی تا ونزوئلا، عموماً به کمبود گسترده انجامیده است.
دولت هرچه بزرگ‌تر شود، به اطلاعات دقیق کمتری دسترسی دارد و اقتصادهای برنامه‌ریزی‌شده از این نقص ساختاری رنج می‌برند.
پال با استنادهای تاریخی، نه با ادعاهای شعاری، نشان می‌دهد که فقر در سوسیالیسم «اتفاق» نیست؛ نتیجه‌ی یک مکانیسم است.



اسطوره‌ی اسکاندیناوی؛ سرمایه‌داری با چهره‌ی انسانی، نه سوسیالیسم

یکی از جذاب‌ترین بخش‌های کتاب، نقد برداشت‌هایی است که کشورهای اسکاندیناوی را نمونه‌های موفق «سوسیالیسم» معرفی می‌کنند. پال با اتکا به داده‌های اقتصادی و ساختارهای مالکیتی توضیح می‌دهد:

۹۰٪ اقتصاد این کشورها در دست بخش خصوصی است.
نظام مالیاتی آن‌ها برخلاف آمریکا، بر طبقه متوسط سنگینی می‌کند، نه طبقات بالا.
نقش دولت در اقتصاد طی دهه‌های اخیر کاهش یافته، نه افزایش.
ثروت اولیه‌ای که پس از جنگ جهانی دوم در این کشورها شکل گرفت، محصول سرمایه‌داری صنعتی بود.
در نتیجه، الگوی اسکاندیناوی بیشتر به یک سرمایه‌داری رفاهی شباهت دارد تا سوسیالیسم.



سوسیالیسم و اقتدارگرایی: پیوندی تصادفی یا ذاتی؟

هسته‌ی فلسفی کتاب در این بخش روشن می‌شود. پال مدعی است که:
هر ایدئولوژی‌ای که مالکیت ابزار تولید را به دست دولت بسپارد، ناگزیر به اقتدارگرایی ختم می‌شود.

چرا؟
زیرا هر تصمیم اقتصادی، به تصمیمی درباره‌ی زندگی خصوصی تبدیل می‌شود:
شغل، میزان مصرف، قیمت کالا، مسکن، دستمزد، نوع خدمات و حتی سبک زندگی. این حجم از تصمیم‌گیری، قدرتی می‌طلبد که تنها در دولت‌های متمرکز قابل اعمال است.
بنابراین مسیر طبیعی سوسیالیسم، به‌جای آزادی اقتصادی، به سمت نظارت، سانسور و کنترل اجتماعی میل می‌کند.

این بخش با اشاره به نمونه‌هایی چون:

گولاگ‌های شوروی

انقلاب فرهنگی چین

اقتصاد جنگی و دولتی فاشیسم آلمان

سرکوب‌های ونزوئلا

چارچوب نظری خود را به شواهد تاریخی گره می‌زند.


برابری یا امتیازدهی؟ سلب آزادی برای توزیع عدالت

در ظاهر، سوسیالیسم وعده برابری می‌دهد.
اما پال توضیح می‌دهد که اجرای برابری اقتصادی به ابزارهایی نیاز دارد که خود «نابرابری سیاسی» می‌سازد:
قدرت مطلقه به بوروکرات‌هایی سپرده می‌شود که تعیین می‌کنند چه کسی چه چیزی را باید داشته باشد.
در نتیجه:

روابط رانتی شکل می‌گیرد
گروه‌های نزدیک به قدرت امتیاز می‌گیرند
فساد ساختاری می‌شود
مردم عادی قربانی می‌شوند


این همان تناقض درونی سوسیالیسم است:
برای ساختن برابری اقتصادی، باید نابرابری سیاسی ایجاد کرد.


فلسفه‌ی سوسیالیسم؛ نقدی اخلاقی از سوی رند پال

در بخش پنجم، کتاب از اقتصاد عبور می‌کند و به مباحث اخلاقی می‌رسد. پال با بیانی روشن توضیح می‌دهد:

انتقال اجباری ثروت، نقض حقوق مالکیت است.
مالکیت خصوصی یکی از بنیادی‌ترین ابزارهای حفظ آزادی فردی است.
سوسیالیسم از فرد می‌خواهد در برابر «جمع» محو شود.
این قربانی‌سازی انسان در برابر ایدئولوژی، اخلاقاً قابل دفاع نیست.


پال این پرسش را مطرح می‌کند:

اگر کنش‌های اقتصادی آزاد در دست فرد نباشد، چطور می‌توان از آزادی سخن گفت؟


استفاده سیاسی از بحران‌ها؛ لحظه‌هایی که دولت چاق‌تر می‌شود

بخش ششم کتاب به سازوکار مهمی در سیاست اشاره می‌کند:
بحران‌ها فرصتی هستند برای گسترش دولت.

پال توضیح می‌دهد که چطور جریان‌های چپ از بحران‌های اقتصادی، زیست‌محیطی و اجتماعی بهره می‌برند تا مداخلات گسترده‌تری را توجیه کنند. او این روند را خطرناک می‌داند، زیرا قدرتی که یک بار به دولت داده شود، به‌ندرت به مردم بازگردانده می‌شود.


این کتاب نه میانه‌رو است و نه ملاحظه‌کار.
رویکرد رند پال علیه چپ، برخوردار از مواضع تاریخی و مستند است.
برخلاف برخی نقدهای آکادمیک که صرفاً به استدلال‌ها بسنده می‌کنند، پال از مثال‌های روشن استفاده می‌کند:

فروپاشی ونزوئلا
سرکوب در کوبا
نسل کشی‌های کمونیستی
فساد ساختاری برنامه‌ریزی اقتصادی
مدل رانت‌محور احزاب اقتدارگرا



از نقاط قوت اصلی کتاب این است که نقد را صرفاً بر «نتایج» بنا نمی‌کند؛ بلکه به «ریشه‌های فلسفی» خطاها می‌پردازد:
باور به خیر جمعی، بدبینی به انگیزه فردی، و تقدیس دولت.

کتاب نقط قوت مهمی دارد:

نثر روان و قابل فهم

استنادهای تاریخی دقیق

پیوند فلسفه آزادی با اقتصاد

نقد جدی بر اسطوره‌های چپ درباره عدالت

نشان‌دادن نقش فرد در برابر ساختارهای اقتدارگرا

هشدار نسبت به الگوهای تکرارشونده در دولت‌های سوسیالیستی


چرا سوسیالیست نیستم فقط یک نقد اقتصادی نیست؛
بیانیه‌ای است در دفاع از آزادی فردی.
در دورانی که سیاست‌های چپ‌گرایانه دوباره جذاب شده‌اند و وعده برابری، گوش‌ها را پر کرده است، این کتاب چون تذکری تاریخی عمل می‌کند:
هیچ رؤیایی بدون بررسی بهایش، ارزش دنبال‌کردن ندارد.

پال نشان می‌دهد که بهای سوسیالیسم، آزادی است؛
و جهانی که آزادی در آن قربانی شود(حتی به بهانه برابری)نه عادلانه خواهد بود، نه انسانی.

[Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Why do so many young people today have a favorable opinion of socialism? Most of them can’t actually define it (government control of the means of production), but many have been enticed by its promises of equality and fairness. I can understand that they may look at the injustices, inequities, and hardships experienced by some Americans and come to the conclusion that our system is flawed and therefore Capitalism must be the problem. And if Capitalism has failed us, then going in the opposite direction, toward Socialism, must be the solution. In this book Paul explains that a free-market system, although still imperfect (because humans are imperfect and corruptible), is still the least bad option.

He reminds the reader what history teaches us about the results of Socialist governments. Socialism has consistently led to misery, oppression, violence, and often outright genocide. The examples are numerous, and the outcomes uniformly tragic. The gulags of the Soviet Union. The holocaust of Nazi Germany (despite revisionists claiming this was a movement of the Right, the Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers Party). The deliberate famines of Communist China. The killing fields of Cambodia. The privations of North Korea. Fascist Italy. Backwards Cuba. Collapsing Venezuela. All of these were promised to be collectivist utopias, but instead resulted in mass suffering. That’s what Socialism does.

But what about Scandinavia? That’s what today’s socialists want, right? Paul shows that these countries are not actually Socialist (and do not appreciate being referred to as such), they just have huge welfare safety nets. Scandinavian countries actually became prosperous through free-market economic policies, and even today economic freedom indices are higher in Scandinavia than the US, with lower corporate taxes, a flatter income tax, and no minimum wage. In the 70s and 80s, after they were already economically successful, they started building giant welfare safety nets. When their economic growth slowed as would be expected, they backed off on some of these policies, but the safety nets continue to be very expensive. The middle class pays a much higher income tax than in the US (about 60%), plus there is a 25% VAT sales tax on all purchases.

We Americans could also decide that we would like similar welfare programs, but let’s not pretend that they won’t be very expensive. Or that they can be paid for by just taxing “the rich.” And don’t believe that you actually want Socialism. If you think you do, you don’t understand what it really means.


Wow. I intended to write a review, and ended up writing a diatribe. Sorry about that. But I think I’m going to let it stand.

[Tom LA · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yes of course this is a book by a republican senator and therefore it’s political in nature. But — as a European living in the US, I felt intrigued by the fact that a book like this actually needed to be written. The more I try to understand the policy proposals, and especially the ideologies, of AOC and Bernie, the more they sound either naive or profoundly ignorant of history and economics. And dangerous.

200 years ago, when workers in factories went through almost unpaid hell everyday, socialism gradually took over as a necessary step. It worked in subverting the old system, but it didn’t work in pretty much achieving anything else, especially over the long term. And then it collapsed everywhere it was adopted as a form of government, under its own intrinsic contradictions.

The fact that 43% of Americans favor socialism is not a promising sign for the US. Today millions of young people are in love with the re-hashing of ideas that still prompt a “feel good” effect, but that have failed over and over and over in spectacularly horrible ways.

But hey, that’s what they hear as lyrics in their songs and lines in their tv shows, which is often the whole extent of the culture they get exposed to (tragically, many European kids as well).

This book looks at each one of these instances, quickly and superficially yes, but with sufficient historic data and facts to make the case for something that should be already absolutely obvious to everyone:

1). that communism and socialism are destined to fail miserably because of their undeniably flawed assumptions about human nature.
2). that “Scandinavian socialism” is not socialism.
3). that inequality, in and of itself, should not be considered an aberration to correct, but a natural feature of any human organization.

[Jeanette · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. The current chapters re South American examples of the early chapters are just gut wrenching.

This surprised me in the depth of the erudite quotient. Not just from human historical example, but from other fields as well beyond history and economics.

The chapters circling around basic human nature and the intolerance of totalitarian opinions being the only allowed- those avenues traveled by definition and criteria exact- they were 6 stars. And the end results of such exampled systems- all country named and explained are 6 star as well. Current reigning states especially and in particular each carved to detail, not just generically grouped.

Income inequality quotients- the fallacy of the quotient itself! Sharing "poverty" to "norm" values monetary or goods equated. Oh have I heard the tales from Eastern European and Russian immigrants for decades! But I fully understand more about the process itself now. How goods "disappear". How supply for commodities fail.

This should be required reading in high school level economics. And it certainly isn't. Especially the chapters entitled: Socialists Expect Selfless Rulers and Citizens, It's Not Socialism Without Purges, and Socialism If It Can't Find a Crisis It Will Create One. When I ask college students particular questions about Socialism- they often can't even define it. It's government ownership of the entities of/for production. Not only companies of utility either. It's in pure forms abolishing private property. It's "free stuff" benevolently given- but where does the "free stuff" come from? Producers, especially middle and upper lower class producers.

Strongly recommend this book. Scandinavian sect or Chinese "FaceCrime" brand. Example and outlay forms, outcomes- all were precise excellent.

[celestine · Rating 1 out of 5]

After 9 painful months, I have finished this mind-numbing roll of toilet paper. It's impressive, really, how dim-witted this book is. Rand Paul is bafflingly stupid, or intentionally deceptive. It is probably a mixture of both.

From the getgo he incorrectly defines socialism, which a cursory glance through even just Marx & Engels's very short Communist Manifesto would help the poor soul on. He frequently conflates modern liberalism with socialism, when his terrible arguments necessitate it. He has the audacity to claim that Hitler was a socialist, at one point even proving this by showing that Hitler mentioned Marx in a paragraph of something or other. He will describe socialism as one thing and within the same chapter describe it as something else, two descriptions that absolutely do not line up with each other. These things happen constantly throughout the book.

Probably the most embarrassing element of this piece of trash are his pitiful citations, 95% of the time pulling his quotes or expounding on his "ideas" by citing an article from some conservative think tank or libertarian rag that is quoting or "reviewing" whatever author or concept he's attempting to pick apart. An early example of this is a chapter where he discusses Thomas Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century -- every single citation is some sort of summary or review from online right-wing publications. He likely does not have the mental capacity to actually read Piketty's book, so he reads absurdly biased articles that are summarizing it and quotes those. He does not engage with any sort of progressive or socialist or Marxist theory directly at any point in the book. It's hilariously sad. The only time he quotes actual books from what I remember are Solzhenitsyn's now-discredited gulag memoirs, and Dostoyevsky's Notes from Underground. Another particularly amusing moment of his inability to read anything as an adult (since the aforementioned were almost certainly high-school assignments) was when he couldn't even muster up the intellectual capacity to read a pop history book from Orlando Figes (The Whisperers), instead relying on an NPR article about the book to provide more ammunition for his anti-socialist "arguments". These are but two small examples of something he does on every single page of this stack of kindling for your fire. If the man does not have a smoother brain than a koala then he does these things intentionally, maliciously.

To think that he actually needed the help of his wife to write a book this idiotic is hilarious. I've seen self-published woowoo conspiracy books full of typos that are better sourced and better written than this monumental piece of garbage.

I would give this book negative stars if I could. It deserves at least a -2.

[Barry Countway]

Another big pile of baloney from US politicians. So America is not socialist? If you go by the definition that socialism is government control, with the billions the US government spends on the military, to prop up failing corporations, farmers, and tax breaks, it sure as hell is. Nothing wrong with a little government intervention-you wont turn into Colombia overnight. Look at the list of the 'happiest' countries in the world. At least eight are somewhat socialist. I include Canada because of their universal medicare. Keep buying into this drivel my American friends, while the poor get poorer and rich get richer-with lots of help from US government tax breaks!

[Mitch Morrow · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should be required reading for any high school or college political science class.

[Manny · Rating 5 out of 5]

An amazing book Sen. Paul. Well done sir, well done. This book should be read by non-socialist and proponents of Socialism. This book blows the lid off of the fallacy of "Socialism". Paul describes the Socialist countries in the past and how they caused millions of deaths and tyranny.

Income inequality is a fallacy. It does not say anything about how those with less income. For example if I work in Dubai and those around me have luxury cars like Bugatti, Lamborghini, Ferrari etc, but I have a Toyota Camry. Yes there is inequality of course but I am not on an ox or donkey. I still have a great reliable car.

How about a hot wife or husband. Is there inequality there as well? Why is it that my wife or husband is not as good looking as that other person's wife or husband. Should we permanently scar their spouses to ensure that there is hotness equality? Obviously my last example is a ridiculous example, however these days, the insanely obvious farces easily become insanely real. Look at Chapter 38, where Paul talks about how China has created facial recognition in public restrooms where if you have NOT gotten toilet paper in the last 9 minutes, they will release 81cm of toilet paper for you to use. Where the government there has facial recognition and you have a social credit score. If you smirk while passing a photo of the leader, you loose points. This is important since you have the Kentucky's Covington Catholic High School students with the MAGA hat. The media finally after failing to prove the students caused anything and facing a legal backlash, now say that his face shows racism. How insane is this where we now have "Face Crime".

How about intelligence? If your child is smarter than my child and your child gets accepted into a better school, should we shut down the better school to force the "not so smart kids" are more equal? I wonder Yale, Harvard, Princeton and the like would be willing to lower their tuition and their standards in the name of education equality?

Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." This a synonymous with these idiots on the left calling for Socialism when they have never lived in it.

Paul also destroys the "Nordic Countries" fallacy. He describes how those countries are NOT in FACT socialist but rather Capitalist Countries with large Welfare states. Not at all free since the middle class pays over 60% in income tax and an additional 25% VAT Tax on everything including food. This is 85% of your earnings going to the State. This leaves you with 15% of your check for food, and all other expenses.

The REALITY is you will either have Venezuela style Socialism or a heavy Welfare state such as the Nordic Countries which are moving back to a more full Capitalist style. Socialism is for the people NOT the Socialists.

[Alicia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful non-fiction book! All Americans should read this. I thought I knew a lot about Mao’s China but I learned so much more about China and many other countries that believed government control would lead to prosperity. Unfortunately, the countries that tried socialism ended up with violence and starvation. It is human nature to work hard when there are incentives and competition; communal work with everyone receiving the same pay regardless of who works harder leads to workers doing the absolute bare minimum. Paul lays out the facts of history (including fascinating personal experiences from survivors) in this captivating book. Paul explains that a free-market system, although imperfect (because humans are imperfect and corruptible), is still the least bad option.

Quotes:
“As long as socialists continue to promote the will of the collective over the rights of the individual, it remains a danger that the determiners of the collective will may determine to carry out policies for their own self-interest, their own power, or even their own petty prejudices. “

“Failing to see the socialism in Nazism misses that which Hitler saw as his great insight: achieving socialism without civil war and in the name of nationalism driven by racial animus. Hitler never denied his socialist platform.”

“Socialism promises equality and leads to tyranny… Mao and Stalin and Hitler didn’t come to power promising tyranny. They came to power promising EQUALITY… It is important to know something of the horrors of Maoism so that we can resist the same calls for government-enforced equality. We can see quite clearly that the more you destroy economic carrots, the more you have to resort to economic sticks.”

Listened on Overdrive. But I look forward to reading the actual book because there is so much in here that is worth rereading and really learning.

[Owlseyes]

This is timely. A timely gift for Bernie & Warren.

[Foroogh · Rating 5 out of 5]

علیرغم اینکه یه جاهایی زیاده‌گویی و تکرار مکررات شده بود اما به دلیل محتوای درستش بهش پنج ستاره کامل میدم.

[Jessica · Rating 5 out of 5]

Phenomenal book! Oh that Americans would read this book in mass! Then they wouldn't be so willing to give up our basic freedoms and rights in exchange for "free" stuff which is never truly "free"! If Americans knew the history of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, they would reject socialism in all of its forms creeping into our country. This is a total page-turner from the first through the last chapter. Stunning read! I encourage everyone to check a copy out at the library or buy a copy, read it, and pass it along...

[Hosein Kashanain · Rating 5 out of 5]

چرا سوسیالیست نیستم
رند پال/کیلی اشبی پال
ترجمهٔ مسعود یوسف حصیرچین

سوسیالیست‌ها می‌گویند که برابری می‌خواهند، اما از مردم عادی اگر بپرسید که واقعاً چه چیزی می‌خواهند، پاسخ خواهند داد که آنچه برایشان مهم است کیفیت استاندارد زندگی خودشان است. (ص80)
...

اشتباه گرفتن نابرابری با فقر مستقیماً ناشی از مغالطهٔ توده‌ای- تفکری که مطابق آن ثروت منبعی محدود است، مثل لاشهٔ بزی که باید با جمع تقسیم شود که در آن اگر کسی بیشتر گیرش بیاید، لاجرم سهم دیگران کمتر شده است؛ ثروت اینطور نیست: از انقلاب صنعتی به این سو، ثروت به صورت تصاعدی افزایش یافته است. یعنی با ثروتمندتر شدن ثروتمندان، فقرا هم ثروتمندتر شده‌اند. (ص83)

یعنی اگر حتی نیمه فقیر جمعیت به اندازهٔ گذشته فقیر است و در سال ۲۰۱۰ به سختی مانند سال ۱۹۱۰، پنج درصد از مجموع ثروت را در اختیار داشته، پس این نیمهٔ فقیر، بسیار ثروتمندتر است، نه همان قدر فقیر. (ص84)
...
اکثر منتقدان فقط وحشت‌های هولوکاست را دیدند و نه ارتباط میان آن وحشت و جمع‌گرایی را که بنیان سوسیالیسم است. (ص201)

آنچه نباید فراموش شود این است که ایدهٔ مرکزی جمع‌گرایی، که اهمیت فرد کمتر از کل است، کاملاً در راستای این ایده است که به دولت اجازه دهد افراد را به عنوان باری بر دوش اجتماع حذف کند. (ص213)
...
منع کردن انباشت درآمد در میان ثروتمندان، لزوماً به این معنی نیست که آن ثروت‌ها از جیب فقرا سر در می‌آورد. (ص67)
...
هم در کاپیتالیسم و هم در سوسیالیسم یک درصدی‌هایی وجود خواهد داشت اما در کاپیتالیسم، زمانی که پارتی‌بازی دولتی آن را فاسد نکرده باشد، آن یک درصد، تا حد زیادی، بر اساس شایستگی است. در یک بازار آزاد حقیقی، فقط زمانی ثروتمند می‌شوید که سرویس یا محصولی را به قیمتی بفروشید که مردم بتوانند داوطلبانه بهای آن را بپردازند. (ص68)
...
اگر یک هدف نهایی فوری برای تاریخ وجود داشته باشد، آنگاه کسانی که باور دارند از آن هدف مطلعند و ادعا می‌کنند به دنبال تبلیغ دستاوردهایش هستند، مشروعیت دارند تا از تمام کسانی که از آن خبر ندارند به عنوان ابزارهایی صرف استفاده کنند. (ص306)

[Foroogh · Rating 4 out of 5]

رند پاول توی این کتاب تلاش می‌کنه نشون بده چرا سوسیالیسم در عمل به فاجعه ختم می‌شه. مثال‌هایی که می‌زنه، از کوبا و ونزوئلا گرفته تا شوروی سابق، برای کسی که از بیرون به ماجرا نگاه می‌کنه شاید زیادی کلیشه‌ای یا حتی از نگاه روشنفکران دل در گرو اندیشه‌های چپ، سیاست زده به نظر بیان، ولی وقتی خودت تجربه‌ی صف، رانت، فساد ساختاری، و محدودیت‌های شغلی یا مالکیتی رو از نزدیک لمس کردی، خیلی از حرف‌هاش کاملاً قابل فهم و منطبق بر واقعیت زیستت میشن.
پاول به مفاهیمی مثل آزادی فردی، مسئولیت شخصی و دولت حداقلی بارها اشاره می‌کنه و با لحنی بی‌پرده نسبت به بزرگ شدن دولت و کنترل بیش از حد زندگی مردم هشدار می‌ده. درسته که بازار آزاد هم بی‌نقص نیست (اگر چیز بی نقصی وجود داشت که همه قبولش داشتن)، اما تجربه نشون داده که حداقل آزادی انتخاب، رقابت سالم و امکان ساختن یه زندگی مستقل توش بیشتره. این کتاب شاید برای مخاطب غربی یه هشدار سیاسی باشه، ولی برای ما، یه بازتاب واقعی از چیزیه که سال‌ها داریم باهاش زندگی می‌کنیم

[Alan Tomkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent -- far exceeded my expectations. Thoroughly edifying and worth one's time and attention. Highly recommended. I am likely to regard this volume as a favored text that I will refer back to time and again.

[Jim Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

I chose to read Rand Paul’s book because I have seen the reports that indicated that as many as 66% of Americans are now leaning towards a Socialistic form of government. There could be only two reasons why this is so, if it is true. First, that is what our students are being taught in our schools, the news media and the entertainment industry. Second and most likely more responsible is that these same people have no concept of what Socialism actually looks like and the damage it has done throughout history.

Some people, like me, will read this book because it does give you a very good understanding of Socialism both past and present. These people are looking to verify their level of understanding of Socialism.

Some people believe they already know everything there is to know about Socialism so why read the book? It would be easy to suggest that choosing not to read the book is their problem and not mine and that would be true. But far more importantly, moving towards Socialism in America is America’s problem and it is a problem provided you understand what Socialism brings and does.

I could never give an adequate explanation of the contents of the book as that would be left to each individual reader’s understanding to achieve. It IS a book that EVERY American should read. If your vision of the future of America is one of Socialism, then you had better be absolutely certain that is what you want and you can’t possibly know that if you don’t know what Socialism has been and continues to be. Paul explains throughout the book that Socialism gives the appearance of being a good government for everyone. However, the ONLY way Socialism can work, requires that the government controls almost every aspect of a person’s life. If people choose NOT to be controlled, government’s only remedy is violence. Paul describes how tens of millions of people have been murdered in the name of Socialism.

As I read the book one thought kept pouring through my consciousness. You can vote your way into Socialism but you will have to shoot your way out of it. Most if not all countries governed by Socialism ban the ownership of guns by its citizens. Therefore, if you later discover that Socialism violates every aspect of the freedom most people seek, they are unable to do anything about changing it.

Who should read the book? As stated, EVERY American but especially freedom loving and freedom seeking American!
Would I read it again? Definitely parts of it
Would I give it as a gift? Absolutely!

[Steven · Rating 2 out of 5]

Unfortunately, this is just a propaganda piece aimed at true believers. It starts with a bunch of unsupported political attacks. Then makes a few good points about state ownership of property. Each section gets more biased than the last. Like he goes thought many horrible regimes conflating Communism, Socialism, and Fascism but ignores examples on the other side like Spain's dictator Franco who fought against the socialist in a coup and was supported by fascists, big businesses, the church, conservative people and Spanish nationalists. It keeps going downhill with less and less evidence and more gut feeling belief in the standard republican non-science. I had hoped for more since Rand Paul is not your normal republican. Like fixing healthcare by removing barriers to selling across state lines which was the only talking point republicans had at the healthcare summit. I can't find any laws that stop insurance companies from selling across state lines. The one law I did find just says that if you sell in two states you have to meet the requirement of both in both, and the history of that law is that companies with offices in other states got tired of their employees in other states getting crap healthcare. The book does the same once sided take with a rundown of how liberals have attack and killed conservatives saying it is the media's fault. I Rand really wanted to make that case he should have given the examples of Gifford and the many other liberals that have been attacked by followers of his side but not one mention of those examples making it a propaganda argument that once side is perfect and the other crazy. Any real value this book could have had in the world was overshadowed by the one-sided propaganda this became.

[Chinchilla · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked up this book because I wanted to hear from different perspectives. Unfortunately, the book left me more frustrated about the subject matter and reluctant to choose other books written by people of similar background in the future.

Let's begin with my overall impression of the book. It is as if two people co-authored this title, and then the editor made no effort to massage the content and make it more cohesive throughout. The first third of the book is basically Rand Paul making aggressive personal attacks on Bernie Sanders and anyone else who has openly criticized the Republican agenda. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with rebutting the opponents' argument or existing policies, the way Rand Paul addresses those issues makes him seem vicious (not in a good way) and absolutely petulant. Rand Paul also makes his arguments through deductive reasoning, which is inherently unreliable. Paired with personal anecdotes that do not make any sense whatsoever in the context of his argument and the lack of citation, this part of the book, of which I'm certain he wrote himself, was a complete failure.

The second part of the book is actually quite interesting. It examines a couple of historic totalitarian/fascist regimes and discusses the roots of socialism. Having recently finished reading "Fascism: A Warning" by Madeleine Albright, it is interesting to see how different perspectives addresses the same idea. A large portion of the book is also invested in dissecting the misconception of the Nordic countries' societal well being. Instead of proliferation due to socialism, Rand Paul argues that market economy and homogeneous familial/culture values are the real contributing factors for the Nordic countries' success. This, is a topic that I would like to investigate further. This part of the book is well organized and mostly objective. Based on the styles of argument and the varied levels of sophistication in diction, it is hard to believe that whoever wrote this part of the book was the same person that wrote the previous sections.

I give this book 2 stars. As a public leader, Rand Paul should exercise better control over his own emotional states. I think it is a waste of paper if all he does is to rant about the opposition while wasting a platform that has true potential to change readers' point-of-views. It makes me hesitant to pickup another book written by a Republican politician. On a positive note, now I'm very intrigued to read "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin, "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and more books by Fyodor Dostoevsky.

[George Hanna · Rating 4 out of 5]

At a critically important time for combatting the perilous group of collectivist ideologies, The Case Against Socialism is a comprehensive, unrelenting, and effective refutation.
Paul organizes his book into multiple sections, each aimed at assailing socialistic ideology from economic, political, historical, and my personal favorite, philosophical, lenses.
However astute his criticism of socialism are, I am afraid his book can only be well received by those already well versed in the rigorous academic debate surrounding capitalism vs socialism.
For many conservatives, this critique is restrictively esoteric; for socialists, the rebuttals do not address their motivations sufficiently.
While this book excellently debunks oft cited virtues of socialism/communism, I’m not sure who Paul’s target audience is, and whether or not this book arms this population in combatting socialism in the popular culture.

I would have liked to see a more economic-focused refutation of why socialism has failed, and increased emphasis on the historical atrocities committed u see socialist regimes, as I thought that section was by far the most riveting.

Overall, I throughly enjoyed this book and recommend it to anyone with an above basic understanding of political systems and history.

[JR Snow · Rating 5 out of 5]

Surprisingly balanced, cogent, and comprehensive. Being written by a politician, I assumed it would be trite, if not ghostwritten. However, Paul's exploration and argument against socialism is quite targeted at the proper audience (younger Americans).

Paul begins by dissecting the socialism of the new progressive left, the boogeyman of Nordic socialism, and the debunking of Venezuela, which nobody remembers was the darling of the left 5 minutes ago, before they went steady for Sweden.

But, thankfully, Paul doesn't end there, going deeper into the philosophical, economic, and psychological arguments against a socialist state. He goes into the case studies of the USSR, China, Etc. not only showing how centralist planning fails on an economic level but also how it crushes individual expression and civil rights. They go together.

For young people or those who haven't already read everything by Thomas Sowell or Freiderich Hayek, this is a pretty serviceable introduction to the failures of socialism. If I had a liberal friend who I knew would actually read a book, I would give them this one.

[Bert Hopkins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sen. Paul recounts the lies, pain and death inflicted on the world's population by the myth of socialism. Over one hundred million deaths in the 20th century alone. Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, all recounted in sad detail. Today's Venezuela and Cuba are also not forgotten.

Yet today, we hear and see the wild predictions and promises by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and many others. Each progressive is trying to out promise each other.

Crazy calls for free-spending policies like Medicare-for-all, free college, the Green New Deal and student loan forgiveness are just some of the promises given.

This is a must read book for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But they won't. Too many stars in their eyes.

[Mario · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well-reasoned answer, based on extensive historical examples, to well-intentioned but hazardous state intervention.

[Roni · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every American should read this book!

[Livewithbooks · Rating 4 out of 5]

چرا سوسیالیسم هنوز به راه خود ادامه می‌دهد؟ تنها جوابی که می‌توانم بدهم جهل است. اگرچه ایدئولوژی ها با شعارهای هیجان انگیز و پر رنگ و لعابی مانند برابری و انصاف پا به میدان میگذارند اما تنها کافی است که به پشت سر و صف طویل قربانیان آرمان شهر کذایی نگریست. با این حال طرفداران این ایده به خود زحمت این را نیز نمی‌دهند.
نتایجی که سوسیالیسم در چین و شوروی و کامبوج ...داشته را انکار می‌کنند و نه تنها آن را سوسیالیسم واقعی نمی دانند بلکه مصرانه در تلاش برای ایجاد سوسیالیسمی واقعی ترند.
نویسنده با آوردن مثال هایی از کشورهای کوبا، ونزوئلا، چین،کامبوج و آلمان و همین طور هشدار ظهور و رخنه روزافزون این ایده در جوامع آمریکایی و اروپایی و در ید قدرت گرفتن رسانه ها و نفوذ در تمام جنبه های دیگر زندگی به خواننده این آگاهی دوباره و دوباره را می‌دهد که ایده سوسیالیسم نه تنها کار نمی‌کند و رفاه به همراه نمی آورد بلکه باعث سلب آزادی و رفاه می شود. او از مثال های نادرستی پرده برمی‌دارد که به غلط سوسیالیست ها آن را نتیجه مثبت سوسیالیسم می‌دانند.
چرا سوسیالیست نیستم؟ هزاران دلیل وجود دارد برای اینکه سوسیالیست نباشید. و تنها با درک تاریخ می‌توانید از گزند این افیونی که رایگان در اختیار اذهان جاهل قرار می‌گیرد مصون بمانید. سوسیالیسم کار نمی‌کند و هر آن چه که به دروغ از پیامدهای مثبت آن می انگارند از برکات وجود کاپیتالیسم و بازار آزاد است.

[Joanne | wellreadcoffeeaddict · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book. Took me a while to get through as he touched on many topics. A must read for everyone, but especially for today's youth. As odd as it may sound, I do wish it were longer, or written in several instalments, as there was so much content to be discussed, that hardly before the chapter got started it was finished already. It is at the very least an excellent starting point and has 30+ pages of references and notes so I can continue learning. It does have a lot of far-left wing vs right-wing debate (which is better, which is worse, etc.) but Rand Paul does seem to advocate working together in his Afterword: Finding Common Ground section, which I appreciate.

[Wendy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Should be required reading in High Schools and Colleges.

[Anuraag Sharma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Better than expected.