By Michael Shook
In previous pieces about Communism, we saw how its foundational Marxist doctrine renders the individual null and void, and declares that humans are infinitely malleable. Such a doctrine readies the ground for a system that is free to ignore the sovereignty, both individual and collective, of the people living within it. Such a system is equally free to employ coercion of all kinds, including physical violence, to force the people to do as they are told.
It is important to note that said coercion and violence are not anomalies, or rare instances of officials acting extrajudicially. They are an explicit, defining aspect of Communism, as developed by Marx, and refined over time, especially by Lenin. The state is the embodiment of the ideal – a class-less, property-less, society of equals – and the individual exists not as a unique person, but as a historical actor of no singular importance, whose life is of value only insofar as it is directed by the state to bring the ideal to fruition.
Thus, law in Communist countries represents, enhances, and protects the power of the state and dictates the behavior of the citizenry.
The contrast with democratic countries could not be more revealing. In democracies, law protects the rights of the citizens, to whom it is beholden, and from whom it receives its legitimacy. It also provides a framework to deal with those who infringe upon citizen’s rights.
Individuals play a central role in both systems – in democracies by their affirmation, and in Communism by their negation.
The recognition of the individual, and all attending rights and responsibilities, is ancient, manifested rudimentarily even before classical Greece, and evolving through the centuries. The most significant moments of that evolution occurred in Western Europe, particularly in England. There, a turning point was reached when King John signed the Magna Carta, in 1215.
This document acknowledged and affirmed that the power of the monarch was limited and subject to the rule of law. It made clear that the monarch could not arbitrarily seize land, and that merchants were free to conduct their business without fear of confiscation of goods, among other stipulations.
While the laws applied only to barons and nobles, the Magna Carta was nonetheless a vital step in the codification of principles of personal liberty, the right to own and dispose of property, and to engage in commerce as one saw fit.
Unfortunately, the document was ultimately disregarded by both the crown and subjects, and was thus legally a nonstarter. Yet it symbolized a way of thinking about governance that has influenced law since then.
As law continued to evolve, property rights were recognized as integral to an individual’s efforts to direct his own life. The ability to create wealth through entrepreneurial endeavors, the right to keep and dispose of that wealth as one chose, and the right to engage in commerce with others without undue interference from the government unleashed the creative potential of vast swaths of the populace.
The sovereignty of the individual and the right to private property are fundamental to democracy, and to the flourishing of the capitalist economy that has brought unprecedented wealth to the world, on a scale unimaginable only a few hundred years ago.
However, even casual readers of the news will be aware of the current desire, voiced especially by those under the age of 50, for socialism. They want to separate socialism from communism, believing that socialism (and democratic socialism) is a kinder beast.
Yet Marx explicitly stated that socialism and communism were the same thing, socialism being the sapling which grows into the tree of communism.
Nevertheless, hard-core socialists persist, along with many more casual supporters. The capitalist system, they say, is irretrievably broken, indeed inherently faulty from the beginning, and causes too much suffering for too many. With the personal fortune of Elon Musk being a bit more than three quarters of a trillion dollars (!), chased by Jeff Bezos and many others, it is hard to argue against the need for a major adjustment of some kind.
However, socialism is not the answer. A democratic socialist is still a socialist, and the ideology underlying both is the same.
“But,” the cry is often heard, “what about the Scandinavian countries? Aren’t they socialist?”
In a word, no. Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and their (non-Scandinavian) neighbors, Finland and Iceland, all have capitalist economies, and robust ones at that. In fact, Sweden has 43 billionaires out of a population of just 10.5 million citizens. Their percentage of “dollar” billionaires (net worth measured in United States dollars) is higher than the U.S. – 4 per 1 million citizens vs. 2 per 1 million. When “kronor” billionaires are factored in, the numbers are in the hundreds, and together those two groups own the equivalent of 70% of Sweden’s GDP.
Sweden also wants to keep its wealthy people from fleeing, so there are no inheritance taxes, and taxes on other forms of wealth are kept low, especially on profit from share sales and dividends. It seems to work. Their wealthy generally stay in the country, and importantly, invest in Swedish startups as well as established companies. The top tax rates are indeed high across Scandinavia (Sweden 52%, Norway 47%, Denmark 57%), but there is considerable variation according to income, which makes the average tax bill lower. Value added tax, and certain corporate taxes help create a hearty revenue stream whereby their social safety net can be funded.
In contrast to Scandinavia’s embrace of personal wealth – one could call it the “carrot-first” approach – New York City is employing a “stick” tactic, and plans to confiscate private property. An example of the city’s operant philosophy is close at hand in the person of Cea Weaver, “housing czar” of NYC, appointed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Both Mamdani and Weaver are members of the Democratic Socialists of America. Regarding their attitudes toward private property, one may refer to some of Weaver’s public statements, declaimed within the last decade:
“Seize private property!” (June 2018)
“Private property including and kind of ESPECIALLY homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy masquerading as ‘wealth building’ public policy.” (August 2019)
“… We are going to transition into treating [property] as a collective good and toward the model of shared equity … It will mean that families … are going to have a different relationship to property than the one that we currently have.” (posted January 2026)
Not surprisingly, Weaver has said she regrets these comments. Her racism aside, it is clear where she, and the party she represents, stand on the concept of private property, and her regret is no more than crocodile tears. If doubts remained about their policy course, the Mayor removed them in a speech on May 26th of this year, stating boldly that the city will pursue “… aggressive legal action to remove negligent owners … [and] for buildings that have suffered chronic neglect, we will work to transfer ownership to responsible stewards.”
It is not clear how the city of New York believes it can “remove negligent owners… [and] transfer ownership,” since the properties are assumed to be legally owned. Taking property because one disagrees with how it is being used is unconstitutional. However, the threat of “aggressive legal action” is not an idle one, and property owners stand to incur significant costs as they defend themselves in court. This is coercion of an insidious kind, and bodes ill for business in New York (and, not incidentally, the city’s tax revenue). If any pro-confiscation court decisions hold up under appeal, there could be a cascade effect spreading to other cities and states.
Such an outcome is, at present, unlikely. But the broader concern is that, via an embrace of socialist ideology, ever more tentacled arms of bureaucracy are formed, which will only serve to slow the gears of commerce. And it is the West’s system of commerce, rooted in private property, and bolstered by the vigorous rule of law, that has procured a greater boon for humanity than any other economic system in history. It is foolish to gamble it away on the fantasies of socialism, democratic or otherwise.
