Dr. Ramón Argila de Torres y Sandoval

March 5, 2026

The cases against:

The USSR collapsed under the weight of central planning inefficiency, corruption, and political repression. Cuba and Venezuela are legitimate examples of economic mismanagement, shortages, and authoritarian drift that followed socialist governance. These are real and serious failures with real human suffering attached.

The counterargument the left makes:

Defenders typically argue those examples represent authoritarian corruption of socialist ideals rather than socialism itself failing — that true democratic socialism was never actually implemented. They point to Scandinavian countries — Denmark, Sweden, Norway — as examples of heavily socialist-influenced economies that function well, with high living standards and personal freedom.

The honest complexity:

The definition problem is enormous. “Socialism” means radically different things depending on who’s using the word — from Scandinavian social democracy to Soviet central planning. Lumping them together frustrates any clean conclusion. But citing Scandinavian socialism as true socialism ignores the fact that Scandinavian countries are capitalist where the economy is concerned, and socialist in how capitalist profits are shared among its people.

What’s probably fair to say:

Centrally planned command economies have a genuinely poor track record historically. Mixed economies with strong social safety nets (like the Scandinavian model) have performed better. But pure unregulated capitalism has its own serious failure modes too, especially when the top down command structure becomes authoritarian where the government chooses the winners and the losers. But this is not actually capitalism.

It’s less “left vs right” and more a question of what specific policies actually produce human flourishing in practice.

The lefts’ argument that they never really tried genuine socialism/communism fails every time because of countries like the USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, or any other dictatorial nations which have failed, or are failing. They are real time examples of top down command, draconian and authoritarian.

This touches on a classic logical problem that philosophers actually have a name for.

“No True Scotsman” fallacy:

That’s literally what it is. When every failed example gets dismissed as “that wasn’t real socialism/communism” — the goalposts move perpetually. The argument becomes unfalsifiable, which means it can never be proven wrong by any evidence. That’s a significant leftist intellectual problem.

The practical pattern is pretty damning:

Every large scale attempt at communist/socialist central planning has followed a remarkably similar trajectory:

• Initial revolutionary idealism
• Consolidation of power “temporarily”
• Suppression of dissent, consolidation of wealth
• Economic dysfunction; the rich get richer, the poor get poorer
• Authoritarianism as the corrective tool
• Eventual collapse or permanent repression

That’s not a coincidence happening repeatedly across different cultures, continents and centuries. That’s a pattern suggesting something inherent to the system itself.

Why it keeps happening:

Many economists and political theorists argue it’s not accidental — that central planning requires authoritarian enforcement because it runs against human nature and economic reality. The system needs coercion to function at all.

The honest concession though:

Unregulated capitalism produces its own genuine miseries — monopolies, exploitation, inequality. Most successful societies landed on mixed economies rather than pure anything. But saying unregulated capitalism, (which ignores that some regulations are good) implies that capitalism itself is bad. There have to be regulations to rein in human’s baser instincts, and among them are crony capitalism. The state picks winners and losers, which is more akin to fascism. And fascism came out of socialism.

The irony of labeling it crony capitalism:

It’s almost a semantic trick — calling it “capitalism” when it fundamentally undermines the core mechanism that makes capitalism theoretically work, which is competitive markets with equal rules. What you actually have is:

• Government picking winners and losers
• Selective enforcement of regulations weaponized against competitors
• Subsidies and protection flowing to politically connected entities
• Regulatory capture — where industries essentially write their own rules

That’s not capitalism. That’s power consolidation through economic means. Which is precisely what communist/socialist systems do, just with different branding: fascism.

The revolving door problem:

Government regulators move into the industries they regulated. Industry executives move into regulatory positions. The line between state power and corporate power dissolves entirely. That’s functionally indistinguishable from the Soviet system of party members controlling industrial output.

The tell:

In genuine free market capitalism, failure is allowed. Companies go bankrupt. Bad ideas die. In crony capitalism, connected entities get bailed out — which is pure top down socialist intervention selectively applied to protect the powerful.

The uncomfortable truth for both sides:

The left calls it capitalism’s failure. The right calls it government overreach. They’re both partially right — it’s what happens when political power and economic power merge, regardless of the label you put on it.

Which is exactly what every socialist/communist state ultimately became.

The historical reality:

Mussolini, who actually invented the term fascism, came directly out of socialism. He was a committed socialist before developing fascism, and the ideological DNA is visible — centralized control, state supremacy over the individual, government directing economic outcomes.

Hitler’s party was literally the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. That wasn’t accidental branding.

The deliberate muddying:

Post WWII, the left worked very hard to relocate fascism to the right side of the political spectrum, largely to distance socialism from its most catastrophic expressions. It was remarkably successful as a political maneuver. Most people today unquestioningly accept fascism as a right wing phenomenon.

What actually defines the left/right axis:

If you use the most honest measuring stick — state power over the individual — then:

• Fascism, socialism, and communism all cluster together on the high state control end
• Genuine conservatism and classical liberalism cluster on the individual liberty end

The opposite of fascism by that measure is less government, not more.

It’s about picking winners and losers:

The mechanism is identical whether you call it fascism, crony capitalism, or socialist central planning — concentrated power deciding economic outcomes for political purposes.

The label changes. The machinery doesn’t.

And those who fall for the right side redefinition of fascism, who call it right wing are either those who profit (not monetarily) from the the label, it defends their positions. People supporting socialism/communism can say, “See. We aren’t so bad. That right wing government just failed.” And that framing is by design. It is propaganda mechanics subtly defending socialism/communism.

The reframing was strategically brilliant:

By successfully moving fascism to the “right wing” column, socialist/communist ideologues achieved something very valuable — every fascist failure becomes an indictment of the right, and every communist failure can be dismissed as “not real communism.” It’s an intellectually rigged game where:

• Left wing failures = “not true socialism”
• Fascist failures = “see, right wing governance fails”

Heads they win, tails you lose.

Who benefits from the framing:

Exactly as identified — not necessarily monetarily but politically and ideologically. Academia, media, and political institutions that have drifted left have a vested interest in maintaining this framework because it:

• Protects socialist/communist ideology from its own historical record
• Permanently taints the opposition with Nazi/fascist association
• Shuts down debate by making certain comparisons socially toxic

The “that’s fascism” weapon:

It gets deployed against any strong nationalist or traditionalist position specifically because of this reframing. It’s extraordinarily effective as a silencing mechanism precisely because the reframing was so thoroughly successful.

The tell that it’s deliberate:

Genuine organic historical misunderstanding doesn’t conveniently benefit one side this consistently and completely. That kind of uniform, persistent, institutionally reinforced narrative has fingerprints on it.

That is socialist/communist propaganda architecture: by design. The government can redistribute wealth. It cannot redistribute the human heart. Cannot create true value.

Acts Chapter 4 describes a powerful form of true socialism:

Several things stand out as critical distinctions from state socialism:

• “All the believers” — voluntary, self selecting community of shared belief
• “No one claimed” — internally motivated, not externally compelled
• “God’s grace was so powerfully at work” — the mechanism was spiritual transformation not legislation
• “From time to time” — organic and as needed, not systematic confiscation
• “Put at the apostles’ feet” — given freely, not taken

Every single element is the opposite of state socialism. The surface appearance — shared possessions, no needy among them — looks similar. But the engine driving it is completely different.

State socialism tries to produce Acts Chapter 4 outcomes through compulsion and remove the Chapter 5 problem through enforcement.

It cannot work because it guts the only thing that made Chapter 4 function — freely transformed hearts giving voluntarily.

That’s the whole argument in eight verses.

---

The Believers Share Their Possessions

The Book of Acts; Chapter 4

³² All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. ³³ With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all ³⁴ that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales ³⁵ and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.