Embrace of Socialism Highlights The Difference Between Being Educated and Being Informed

There is a significant difference between being educated and being informed. To become educated, one merely has to fulfill the requirements of a specific degree-granting institution; upon doing so, one receives a doctoral degree--but it is a dangerous fallacy to confuse being educated with being informed, because education far too often involves being indoctrinated with false narratives. In contrast, being informed means thinking with an open mind, consuming information from objective sources while considering information from subjective sources with skepticism, and then synthesizing the acquired information to base opinions on facts and logic.

Our politics, our schools, and our media outlets have far too many educated people and far too few informed people. Educated people often spew ideas that Vladimir Nabokov would correctly dismiss as "poshlost." One such idea is that socialism is good. 

In an August 6, 2025 Wall Street Journal Op-Ed titled "The Scholar Who Saw Zohran Mamdani Coming in 2003," Daniel Shuchman noted that over 20 years ago Alan Charles Kors foretold the circumstances under which socialist ideas could take sway in the West:

Mr. Kors lamented that socialism has yet to be held accountable for the scale of its crimes: "No cause, ever, in the history of all mankind, has produced more cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents and more orphans than socialism with power." The failure to acknowledge and come to terms with this reality in the West, he believed, eventually would allow socialism to resuscitate itself, even with millions of skeletons hiding in plain view.

Zohran Mamdani, the New York Democratic mayoral nominee, has proposed government-run grocery stores as a hallmark of his campaign. This is a perplexing platform because, as Mr. Kors reminded us in his paper, socialism's "collectivization of agriculture alone led to untold suffering" and the starvation of millions...

As Mr. Kors noted, wherever socialism was implemented, "its vision of the abolition of private property, economic inequality, and the allocation of capital and goods by free markets, culminated in the crushing of individual, economic, religious, associational, and political liberty."

It is demonstrably false that Mamdani is promoting some form of "democratic socialism" that can be distinguished from the socialism that failed in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, and elsewhere. The socialism that failed in those countries advertised itself as "democratic socialism" before showing its fangs and true nature after its leaders had full control of the power levers. Socialism starts with a utopian dream and ends with a dystopian nightmare; informed people understand this, but educated people often have been indoctrinated to believe in the dream while ignoring the inevitable nightmare.

As I noted in a 2021 article, former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov--who had firsthand experience with socialist tyranny while living in the former Soviet Union--laments the Western embrace of socialism. The contrast between how an informed person like Kasparov speaks and how educated Leftists speak is profound:

Asked to expound upon the difference between America and the Soviet Union, Kasparov begins by stating, "The problem with Americans is you take things for granted. You keep forgetting the wise words of Ronald Reagan...that freedom is a fragile thing that is never more than one generation away from extinction." Kasparov adds that when he lived under Soviet tyranny, "We knew America had problems. Again, there is no perfection in this world! Compare this country to any other place on the planet and you will not find a place that offers more opportunities for people of all races, genders. That is why people like me are getting so concerned when self-criticism turns into self-flagellation." He rightly calls it "nonsense" to assert that America was built on evil, and he adds, "I know that a lot of people may feel uncomfortable with what I am saying, but I speak on behalf of millions and millions and millions of people from Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, other places who look at America and they are confused and scared and don't understand why this great power is in retreat." 

America is not evil, and it is not courageous or "speaking one's truth" (what a vacuous phrase that is!) to call America evil. America is not perfect, but America is--in the timeless words of Abraham Lincoln--"The last, best hope of Earth." It is courageous to speak that truth in a time and place where speaking truth can get you canceled. I applaud Garry Kasparov, and I hope that his message plays a role in helping to reverse the deplorable trend of American self-flagellation that has become a badge of pride to some but is in fact a badge of ignorance and shame.

Kasparov concludes by noting that the free world is at war with tyrannical forces and regimes, whether or not we understand and accept that challenge--and it is a fight to the death. He wisely notes that America did not end the war in Afghanistan and we certainly did not win the war; we retreated. We must be eternally vigilant to build a better world not only for ourselves but for our children.

The New York mayoral campaign is not just of local significance. New York City is the largest city in our country, and is a symbol of what our country represents (or should represent): a melting pot of different ethnic groups and religious groups living side by side while enjoying the unparalleled freedoms and opportunities that exist only in America. Free countries like America build fences to keep out illegal immigrants, while tyrannical countries build fences to prevent people from leaving. It would be an unspeakable tragedy if New York City became a bridgehead for implementing the socialist nightmare on our shores. 

It may seem overwhelming to confront the hordes of educated people who promote socialism and the "useful idiots" who blindly follow them, but two years ago in the wake of Hamas' mass casualty terrorist attack against Israel--and the outpouring of "progressive" support for Hamas--I outlined the methods for combating the self-proclaimed "progressives":

1) Don't vote for self-proclaimed "progressives." We need to vote the self-proclaimed "Squad" and all of their allies out of Congress (and out of any other elected offices) as soon as possible.

2) Don't contribute money, time, or any other support to organizations that are founded on Marxist, anti-democratic principles. If you do a little research, it is not difficult to identify these organizations, and it is also helpful to understand that most of them use the same catchphrases/terminology that provide great warning signs of their true nature/goals.

3) Fight against the infiltration of pseudo-intellectual nonsense into the education system. No reasonable person is saying that slavery should not be taught about in the schools, or that racism should not be discussed--but the notion that entire groups of people can be classified as oppressed or oppressors (or racists or antiracists) should be consigned to the dustbin of discredited concepts. 

4) If you went to college, urge your alma mater to sign up with Universities United Against Terrorism. My undergrad alma mater Excelsior University signed up after I contacted the university president; shamefully, my law school alma mater University of Dayton has not signed up. Make it clear to colleges, corporations, and charities that you will redirect your contributions away from institutions that lack the moral clarity/courage to condemn Hamas and toward institutions that display moral clarity and courage. 

The self-proclaimed "progressives" are defiant, loud, and strident, but they have not taken over society--yet. It is our duty to make sure that they never do while also being aware that our society is not perfect and while working toward improving our society in the areas where it falls short of its foundational ideals.

AOC: Capitalism is "not a redeemable system"

U.S. Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is honest about at least one thing: she came to Congress to destroy capitalism, not reform it. In a recent interview, she repeated a sentiment that she has stated before in a variety of ways and via multiple media platforms: capitalism is "not a redeemable system" and therefore must be replaced by a system in which the government exerts significant control over the economy.

For a brief, unfortunate period a couple years ago, I wasted too much time trying to educate someone who insisted that "democratic socialists" are different from the Marxists and/or socialists who destroyed lives in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Venezuela--and every other country where Marxists and/or socialists gained power. He insisted that "democratic socialists" just want to improve our lives and create a more equitable and just society. Of course, that is nonsense, and anyone who utters such nonsense is either misinformed or is attempting to misinform others. 

Ocasio-Cortez and her fellow travelers are generally very honest about their ultimate goals. The question thus is not what they are trying to do, but what the rest of us are going to do about it. Will the Democratic Party cease to exist and just become a de facto socialist party? Will people who are not Democrats recognize the dangers inherent in socialism and do everything possible to make sure that our country does not become socialist?

There is an option available for American socialists that they are oddly disinclined to pursue: move to a country that is already practicing socialism, and try out their wonderful ideas there. I am sure that the Chinese government would be happy to hear AOC's long list of grievances and suggestions, so it would no doubt be great for her, America, and China if she relocated to a country that already has a socialist infrastructure in place. Such a country is without a doubt more equipped to enact her proposed reforms than America. If AOC and her fellow socialists take their "progressive" ideas overseas, we would then just have to figure out how to struggle along without the benefit of her amazing insights. Somehow, I suspect that we can manage to accomplish that task.

Garry Kasparov on Risk Taking, Being a Champion, and the Differences Between Capitalism and Socialism

Last week, in Garry Kasparov Laments the American Left's Embrace of Socialism, I cited some of the former World Chess Champion's brilliant thoughts and observations about socialism's flaws. I found another Kasparov interview that is also brilliant and timely. Kasparov did a wide-ranging interview with Patrick Bet-David in which he spoke about risk taking, what it takes to become a champion (a subject that has always intrigued me), and the differences between capitalism and socialism. 

The Kasparov/Bet-David video lasts 72 minutes, but the investment of that time to watch the video is well worth it. Time is our most precious commodity, and time well spent yields lasting dividends. Put another way, the saying "You are what you eat" is true on many levels. The food that you put in your body is the fuel that determines how efficiently and effectively your body works; it is also true in a broader sense that you are what you consume: if you put nonsense ideas in your head then you will have a confused mind. 

We are dealing with an epidemic of confused minds that have consumed nonsense. 

When I read Garry Kasparov's words or hear him speak, I know that I am consuming material that strengthens the mind and spirit.

Asked how he maintained dominance over the chess world for 15 years, Kasparov replied, "If you challenge your own excellence, you will never run short of opponents." Kasparov explained that there is no such thing as playing a perfect game. The loser made the last mistake, but the winner also made mistakes, and the smart winners--the champions--learn from those mistakes. In Habit, Attitude and Promises to Yourself, I cited words of wisdom from John W. Scott's book Step-by-Step Basketball Fundamentals (Prentice Hall, 1989), including this gem by Sydney J. Harris: "A loser is afraid to acknowledge his defects; a winner is aware that his defects are part of the same central system as his assets, and while he tries to minimize their effect, he never denies their influence."

Kasparov mentions that working hard is a talent, and the combination of that talent with other talents produces a champion. That reminds me of a quote from Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Famer Harry Gallatin; he was asked how he became a great rebounder, and he replied that he was blessed with the talent to work hard. I was struck by that notion of working hard being a talent, and I never forgot it.

Many people talk about risk, and they try to figure out how to eliminate risk. Kasparov has a different perspective: "Taking risks is risky. Not taking risks is riskier." Kasparov understands that it is not possible--or desirable--to live a risk-free life, and there are benefits to taking risks. Of course, risks must be calculated accurately, and balanced with potential benefits, but the notion that it is possible to eliminate all risk--for example, to live in a COVID-19 free world, which some politicians appear to believe to be a realistic goal--is foolish. 

It is disappointing--and concerning--that within living memory of the collapse of the U.S.S.R. there are so many people who are trying to implement socialism in America. Kasparov quotes Winston Churchill: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Comparing the free world countries to the countries dominated by totalitarianism, Kasparov declares, "We had an experiment: China gave us a virus; America gave us a vaccine." Kasparov has emphasized in previous interviews that he is not saying that China intentionally created COVID-19, but rather that COVID-19 emerged from a dictatorship that is unwilling or unable to create an effective vaccine, while in contrast America--a country so reviled by the self-proclaimed "progressives" in our midst--produced a life-saving vaccine in record time.

Asked to expound upon the difference between America and the Soviet Union, Kasparov begins by stating, "The problem with Americans is you take things for granted. You keep forgetting the wise words of Ronald Reagan...that freedom is a fragile thing that is never more than one generation away from extinction." Kasparov adds that when he lived under Soviet tyranny, "We knew America had problems. Again, there is no perfection in this world! Compare this country to any other place on the planet and you will not find a place that offers more opportunities for people of all races, genders. That is why people like me are getting so concerned when self-criticism turns into self-flagellation." He rightly calls it "nonsense" to assert that America was built on evil, and he adds, "I know that a lot of people may feel uncomfortable with what I am saying, but I speak on behalf of millions and millions and millions of people from Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, other places who look at America and they are confused and scared and don't understand why this great power is in retreat." 

America is not evil, and it is not courageous or "speaking one's truth" (what a vacuous phrase that is!) to call America evil. America is not perfect, but America is--in the timeless words of Abraham Lincoln--"The last, best hope of Earth." It is courageous to speak that truth in a time and place where speaking truth can get you canceled. I applaud Garry Kasparov, and I hope that his message plays a role in helping to reverse the deplorable trend of American self-flagellation that has become a badge of pride to some but is in fact a badge of ignorance and shame.

Kasparov concludes by noting that the free world is at war with tyrannical forces and regimes, whether or not we understand and accept that challenge--and it is a fight to the death. He wisely notes that America did not end the war in Afghanistan and we certainly did not win the war; we retreated. We must be eternally vigilant to build a better world not only for ourselves but for our children.

Garry Kasparov Laments the American Left's Embrace of Socialism

Some American socialists insist that their brand of socialism is completely different from the socialism that tyrannized the Soviet Union and still tyrannizes China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, and far too many other countries today. "We just want to make people's lives better and create a safety net for the less fortunate," these American socialists insist.

Those who understand history--and those who lived under socialist oppression--know better, as I discussed in Petr Izmailov's Story is a Cautionary Tale About Marxist Theory in Practice.

Former World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov was raised in the USSR but he educated himself about socialism's flaws and he recently did a brilliant interview explaining those flaws. The entire interview lasts less than 90 minutes and is well worth your time, but if you only have five minutes then fast forward to around the 55 minute mark and listen to him explain why the socialism advocated by Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is just as evil and dangerous as the socialism that enslaved Kasparov's home country. Among other things, Kasparov points out the hypocrisy of people who protest police brutality in the United States but turn a blind eye to the horrors taking place in China and so many other totalitarian dictatorships. Although Kasparov does not mention it directly, the warm feelings that the American Left has for leftist dictatorships are nothing new, and date back for several decades (all the way back to Stalin's regime, in fact). American socialism is not about improving the lives of the less fortunate; it is about destroying the American way of life, and replacing it with a system that has failed every single time that it has been implemented--and failed in ways that caused profound misery and suffering.

During the interview, Kasparov states that he supports any country that has democratic values, and he emphasizes that this is why he supports Israel. Contrast Kasparov's take on Israel with the hateful rhetoric emanating from the American Left, including the false accusations that Israel practices apartheid. 

Kasparov does not mention Critical Race Theory by name, but Critical Race Theory embodies the ignorance and hypocrisy that Kasparov discusses. It is important to become educated about the Marxist underpinnings and implications of Critical Race Theory. Once you understand the founding principles of CRT, and the goals of its followers, if you still support the precepts and goals of CRT then the burden is on you to explain/prove that you are not against democracy (both in this country and in other countries around the world, including Israel), and the burden is on you to explain why you act as if America is an evil country while ignoring the evil taking place on a massive scale in China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and many other totalitarian countries. 

Put simply, I would say to any supporter of CRT, "I agree that the history of the American slave trade and racism should be taught in schools. Why do you want to suppress media coverage and education about the slavery, oppression, and genocide that is happening in the world right now? Why do you pretend that America is irredeemably racist and evil while ignoring the racism and evil taking place right now in countries that, not coincidentally, are sworn enemies of America and American values?"

No intelligent person can take seriously an ideology or a movement that attacks America but then is silent about China's atrocities. Many media members anoint various athletes and entertainers as so-called social justice warriors. Enes Kanter is a real social justice warrior, an NBA player who has bravely spoken out against the oppression in his native Turkey and also about Chinese oppression of Hong Kong. The NBA has repeatedly proven that its slogan "The NBA Cares" should be renamed NBA Cares About Profits as it rakes in Chinese sponsorship money while ignoring China's brutality. 

Kasparov laments that for young Americans the Cold War is ancient history that has been misunderstood, if not forgotten. He correctly states that America is not perfect, but no country is perfect, and he disagrees with the awful notion propagated by the American Left that America is fundamentally evil.

During the interview, Kasparov made a very insightful comment about the sad state of American political discourse. America used to be about striving for excellence, he explained, but the last two Presidential elections have been about choosing the lesser of two evils. Kasparov rejects both the American Left's embrace of socialism and the American Right's embrace of Donald Trump, and he implores our country to get back on the path of providing leadership to the Free World, which he notes was a bipartisan goal from 1945-1991. Kasparov asserts that during that period Democrats and Republicans disagreed about methods but not goals, but that since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War the two parties no longer agree about goals, which has set America adrift and threatens our leadership role in the world by damaging our moral authority. 

I would add that President Biden's defining moment--the triumph of the Taliban--exemplifies the failure that Kasparov astutely identified, and that has been authored by both political parties for the past 30 years or so. Kasparov calls out the hypocrisy of both the Democrats and the Republicans: the Democrats blame President Trump for signing a deal with the Taliban (but ignore that the collapse happened under President Biden's rule) while the Republicans blame President Biden for the collapse of Afghanistan under President Biden's rule (but ignore that President Trump signed a deal with the Taliban). 

Hopefully, America will regain its footing both domestically and abroad, and once again strive for excellence instead of being mired in mediocrity, extremism, and divisiveness.

Is America Heading for Violent Revolution?

"Intelligentsia" is a nice-sounding word with a sinister undertone. Gary Saul Morson, a professor of Russian literature at Northwestern University, explains in a Wall Street Journal interview that in the classic period in Russia (approximately 1860-1905) "the word did not mean everybody who was educated. It meant educated people who identified with one or another of the radical movements. 'Intelligents' believed in atheism, revolution and either socialism or anarchism."

Professor Morson is concerned about the extent and nature of the riots that took place in America after George Floyd's brutal death under the knee of a Minneapolis police officer. Professor Morson declares, "To me it's astonishingly like late 19th-, early 20th-century Russia, when basically the entire educated class felt you simply had to be against the regime or some sort of revolutionary." He adds that we have reached a dangerous point in which, as writer Barton Swaim paraphrases Morson's analysis, "well-intentioned liberal people often can't bring themselves to say that lawless violence is wrong." The intelligentsia sparked a revolution that led to decades of socialist oppression not just in the Soviet Union but also in every country that had the misfortune of being behind the Iron Curtain. Professor Morson is concerned that America is heading toward a similarly violent revolution.

How often have we heard public figures say that mass violence/rioting is understandable, and that it does not matter because insurance will pay for the damage? Such reckless statements are the recipe for the unraveling of societal order. At least as worrisome as the casual condoning of violence is the current climate in which it has become unacceptable--if not impossible--to have an intelligent and meaningful dialogue about complex issues; all we have now are competing, angry monologues. Morson states, "You get into a revolutionary situation because people can't hear. Can there be a dialogue on important questions, or is there only one thing to say about every question? Are people afraid to say, 'Well, yes, but it's not quite as simple as that'?...When you can't do that, you're heading to a one-party state or a dictatorship of some sort. If one party is always wrong and another always right, why not just have the right one?" (emphasis added).

We appear to be at a crucial and historic juncture. Will America's two party system collapse? Will either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party wipe out the other? Will America have just one "right" party, with no dissent permitted? There used to be a sense that the two main U.S. political parties agreed in a large sense about the goals for America, but disagreed about how to best obtain those goals. Now, the parties barely speak to each other in any meaningful or productive way. Partisans for each side don't just disagree with their opponents; they demonize them.

Professor Morson calls this "ideological segregation." He explains, "It was very easy for white people to believe evil things about black people when they never met any. But when you live with somebody, you realize that they're no worse than you are...We've increasingly had ideological segregation on both sides. Each side has caricature views of the other."

Meanwhile--perhaps due at least in part to understandable frustration with both parties--it has become fashionable for many young people to play around with socialism or anarchism, much like a small child who does not know better (and is not properly supervised) might play around with matches until he or she starts a big fire. If you are young and/or misinformed then you have neither the life experience nor the educational background to know about how Stalin murdered tens of millions of people in the name of socialism, or about the killing fields of Southeast Asia, or about how anarchism has proven capable only of destroying but not of building anything of lasting value.

Professor Morson somberly concludes, "we have a major depression, we have terrible fear from the illness, and now we have mass riots in the street, which our leaders do not seem to know how to handle. That's a very rapid slide from only a year ago. And there's no reason to think it will slow down. The slide could well continue."

I share Professor Morson's concern about America's future. Perhaps the one saving grace for America is that this country, however flawed and divided, was founded as a liberal democracy, while Russia has a history of authoritarianism and totalitarianism that dates back many centuries; socialism and tyranny found fertile soil in Russia, while here the soil may not be as well-suited for socialism and tyranny--but anyone who cares about this country's future cannot be satisfied with the hope/expectation that socialism and tyranny could never take hold here: we must fight to preserve what is great about America, while also striving to improve our country where improvements are needed.

There is no doubt that America needs to improve in some areas, but those who assert that America is somehow founded in sin and/or is irredeemably evil should well consider the lessons of world history. A country based on liberal democracy with a capitalist economic system is far from perfect--but it is infinitely better than a country built on the illusions of socialism or the disarray of anarchy. We must work together to save what deserves saving, fix what is broken, and develop creative solutions to both old and new challenges.

In the words of Winston Churchill, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

In the spirit of Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., we must work together not to destroy America but rather to build America up to the point that this country fully lives up to the ideals upon which she was founded.