Think of it as Yoga for the brain, we are going to stretch a bit.
That Ugly Thing That Sticks Out Its Head in America Every Few Decades…
The central problem was never a shortage of educated planners. The problem is always concentrated power combined with human nature. --YNOT!
I have been around long enough to notice that America develops a strange case of political amnesia every few decades.
An old idea sticks its head out again. It has a new haircut, a younger audience and a fresh set of words. It insists that it is nothing like the version that came before. That was old communism. That was authoritarian socialism. That was done by the wrong people, in the wrong country, at the wrong time.
This time, we are told, it will be democratic. Compassionate. Equitable. Properly managed.
This time, the right people will be in charge.
I keep hearing some version of the same argument: “Communism has never really been tried,” or “It just wasn’t done correctly.” Then, when the word communism becomes too uncomfortable, the language changes. Now it is democratic socialism, economic justice or equity.
No, democratic socialism and Soviet communism are not identical. I am not saying that a public library, Social Security or a labor union is communism. If we call every government program communist, the word becomes meaningless.
But I am also not willing to stop thinking simply because somebody added the word democratic in front of socialism.
The Democratic Socialists of America says it rejects authoritarian socialism and wants change through democratic means. Fine. I am glad it says that. But the organization also says capitalism must be replaced, not merely improved. That is not something a critic invented; it is part of the DSA’s own explanation of what democratic socialism means.
So I think we should listen carefully to the whole sentence—not just the comforting adjective at the beginning.
Names change. Power does not.
The older I get, the less interested I am in what a political movement calls itself. I want to know what it plans to do with power.
Who will own things?
Who will make the decisions?
Who will decide what is “fair” and what is “too much”?
Who gets to speak against the program after it has begun?
And if the people decide they made a mistake, can they reverse it peacefully?
Those questions tell us far more than the name on the sign.
Every political movement understands the power of language. Change the word and you can change how people feel before they have even considered the facts. A tax becomes an investment. Government control becomes public participation. Illegal becomes undocumented. Censorship becomes safety. Political opponents become threats to democracy.
The right does this too. Everybody in politics tries to name the argument in a way that helps their side.
But the Leninists were especially serious students of language, organization and coalition building. They understood that a small, disciplined group did not always need to announce the final destination. It could join a much larger coalition built around popular complaints, immediate reforms and emotionally powerful causes.
The Communist International called this a “united front.” Its own 1922 discussion of the tactic described communists joining broader struggles while keeping their separate organization and revolutionary purpose.
That does not mean every progressive organization is secretly controlled by communists. It does mean we should stop looking only at the friendly public face of a movement. We should look at the people with the money, the people making the strategy and the people who will still be there after the temporary coalition has served its purpose.
Follow the organization. Follow the money. Follow the power.
Why would a billionaire finance this?
This is the part I have always found almost comical.
A person becomes enormously wealthy because a relatively free society allowed him to build, invest, sell and keep the rewards of success. Then he turns around and finances people who regard that very system as immoral.
Why?
Perhaps some of them truly believe the revolution will produce a better world. Perhaps wealth creates guilt. Perhaps supporting fashionable causes buys social approval. Perhaps they imagine that when the new system arrives, they will be among the wise people running it.
That last possibility may be the most human of all. Everybody assumes the committee will include them.
History suggests otherwise.
Once property becomes something government grants instead of a right government protects, today’s generous donor can become tomorrow’s convenient villain. A revolutionary movement may appreciate a rich man’s money. That does not mean it will appreciate the rich man after the money has been spent.
There are present-day funding networks worth examining carefully. In July 2026, a House committee announced subpoenas for three nonprofit organizations connected to wealthy activist Neville Roy Singham while investigating alleged foreign-linked funding and possible connections to Chinese Communist Party interests. Those are allegations under investigation, not a conviction, and they should be reported that way. But the questions are legitimate, and the investigation is real.
I do not need a conspiracy theory. I want disclosure.
Tell us where the money came from, where it went, what it purchased and whether a foreign government helped direct it. Let the facts speak. If nothing improper happened, transparency protects the innocent. If something did happen, transparency exposes it.
But where are the peasants?
America in 2026 is not Russia in 1917. We do not have millions of peasants preparing to storm the palace. Today’s socialist may be a college graduate with an office job, a smartphone, three streaming subscriptions and an expensive coffee in hand.
That can make the whole thing seem ridiculous. Yet people do not have to be starving before they become attracted to radical politics.
They can be lonely. Frustrated. Deeply in debt. Unable to buy a house. Convinced that the system is rigged. Angry that somebody else has more. Looking for a community, a purpose and a simple explanation for a complicated life.
An ideology can provide all three. It tells you who the bad people are, why you are unhappy and how the world will be repaired once the bad people lose their power.
That is an incredibly powerful product.
And those of us who believe in free enterprise should not pretend that every complaint is imaginary. Housing really is too expensive. Medical costs really are frightening. Large companies really do use government to protect themselves from competition. Politicians really do rescue insiders and then lecture ordinary people about the free market.
If we defend corruption, favoritism and monopoly as “capitalism,” we are doing the socialists’ recruiting for them.
The best answer to socialism is not another speech about capitalism. It is a system in which ordinary people can still start something, own something, build something and improve their lives without first receiving permission from somebody important.
That is the kind of capitalism worth defending.
We have seen this movie before
Communism sticks its head out every few decades because the generation that remembers the last disaster eventually leaves the room.
The new generation looks at the old photographs and thinks, “Those people were crude. We are educated. We have better technology. We understand human rights. We would never make those mistakes.”
But the central problem was never a shortage of educated planners. The problem was concentrated power combined with human nature.
Give a small group control over politics, employment, property, education and information, and eventually that group will use its power to protect itself. It will call its critics selfish, dangerous, reactionary or disloyal. It will insist that failures occurred because the program was not applied forcefully enough. The promised temporary controls will become permanent because surrendering power is never part of the plan.
That is what worries me—not a label, a bumper sticker or a college student quoting Marx.
I worry about any system that promises to perfect humanity after it has accumulated enough power to silence human disagreement.
At the same time, we should remember another American mistake. Fear of communism once gave us McCarthyism, blacklists and reckless accusations. The National Archives’ account of the Red Scare is a reminder that we can damage freedom while claiming to save it.
We do not defeat an authoritarian idea by becoming authoritarian ourselves.
We defeat it with open debate, honest history, transparent funding, private property, due process, religious freedom, independent institutions and a government that remains limited enough to be told no.
So when that old thing sticks out its head again, I am not going to panic. I am not going to call everyone who wants health care a Bolshevik. I am not going to assume every young socialist is secretly planning a dictatorship.
But I am going to look closely.
Who owns?
Who decides?
Who may disagree?
Who can walk away?
And can we vote the whole thing back out again without first asking its permission?
If the answer to every question leads to the same little group of people, then it is not a new idea.
It is that same old thing, sticking out its head in America one more time—and hoping we have forgotten what the rest of it looks like.
