Below is my column in the New York Post on the bizarre effort of Democratic Socialist leaders to herald South Africa and Cuba as models for the United States to emulate. They have apparently replaced Venezuela as examples of the workers’ paradise that can be found through collectivism.
Here is the column:
Socialism has long been a political theory that survives more on hype than history.
The problem for the growing movement of young socialists in America is that it has consistently failed, outside the confines of their college Marxism 101 courses.
During the Cold War, Soviet communists referred to American liberals as “useful idiots,” armchair revolutionaries who spouted proletarian slogans at cocktail parties. Zohran Mamdani and his newly appointed cadre engage in chest-pounding about their intentions to “seize the means of production” while living off their parents or working friends in high society.
Today, they are often young people who joined communist coffee klatches in college under the tutelage of academia’s “radical chic.”
They often reveal little actual historical or philosophical knowledge, which is an advantage if you are going to call for the replication of one of the least successful political theories in history.
Venezuela is a prime example.
At one time, American radicals pointed to Venezuela as the new workers’ paradise.
Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders claimed that the “American dream is more apt to be realized” in Venezuela than in the United States.
As recently as 2019, Chicago Teachers Union members went to Venezuela to herald life under socialism and how they did not see “a single homeless person.”
They also did not see any dissent or free speech, which helped conceal a collapsing economy.
In short order, socialists in Venezuela turned one of the most affluent nations on earth into an economic basket case.
After seizing control of the once-burgeoning oil industry, the socialists reduced production to a trickle.
The people suffered starvation; some were forced to eat their pets.
Venezuelan socialism was only preserved through the suppression of elections and a large force of Cuban military and security personnel.
With Venezuela now mostly out of fashion, American socialists are citing other models for the United States.
Mamdani is now heralding South Africa as a model, a country where his family owns a large estate and a guarded manor.
In his pledge to govern “expansively and audaciously,” Mamdani told New Yorkers to “look to Madiba and the South African Freedom Charter.”
The suggestion is that conditions in the United States are akin to apartheid in South Africa, and similar measures to redistribute property might be necessary in this country.
Of course, South Africa’s economy is in tatters, while many are alleging a loss of due process in the confiscation of land from white citizens.
The country has struggled with economic conditions for years under measures that range from the repressive to the moronic.
Other American socialists are citing another socialist “success” story: Cuba.
Interviewer Brandi Kruse asked Democratic Socialist Shaun Scott this week to “give me one example of socialism working well somewhere.”
The state representative from Seattle immediately cited Cuba as “a good example of socialism working well.”
He noted improvement in literacy rates and public health — while ignoring that Cuba’s economy has been reduced to little above subsistence for many citizens, and the regime continues its blood-soaked repression of its own people.
Indeed, Cuba relied on Venezuela to keep its lights on and, in return, supplied troops to repress the Venezuelan people.
Nevertheless, Scott insists that Cuba is “one example that I can think of that would resonate with pretty much anybody in our state who cares about education or health care.”
He added, “Would you disagree with that?”
Well, yeah, I would.
More importantly, so would millions who fled that nation in search of freedom. Try asking that question on the streets of Miami.
In my forthcoming book, I discuss this shift toward socialism among a new generation of young people with no experience or memory of the collapse of such systems in the 20th century.
They have been fed a reassuring line that their failure to get jobs is not due to their studying “community advocacy and social policy” but inherent failures in capitalism.
Of course, repeating communist dogma and a degree in Africana studies from Bowdoin College can still get you elected as mayor of New York City.
However, for many, the lack of employment prospects seems to reaffirm what radical faculty told them about the conspiracy of evil capitalists ranging from oligarchs to oil companies.
They are much like Cea Weaver, the new director of the Office to Protect Tenants, who holds degrees from the ultraleft universities of Bryn Mawr College and New York University, where she studied urban planning.
She has called for the seizure of private property, dismantling “white supremacy and capitalism,” voting against white men, and electing more communists.
New York will now be a type of field trip for these college communists in creating another worker’s paradise, from free buses to state-operated stores.
In the end, I expect that they will prove the Soviets wrong: There is nothing “useful” that will come from such idiocy.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Mamdani has been warned by the DOJ (Harmeet Dhillon) that Cea Weaver’s anti-white discrimination position would not be tolerated.
https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/01/07/trump-admin-warns-mamdani-against-anti-white-discrimination/
Regarding Venezuela..
Donald Trump is speaking with Sean Hannity on Fox News currently, bemoaning the fact that he was not awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and saying it “would be a great honor” if María Corina Machado gave him her Nobel Peace Prize, as she’s promised to do, when she visits the country.
……………………………………
Late Breaking: The Guardian
Socialists, communists and the like are stupid. Bottom line socialism and other anti-capitalism movements fail, every time. If I recall correctlySweden had a socialist “cradle to grave” system for decades until they went bust. They changed back to basic capitalism and are thriving today. The usual retort is, “of course it failed. They didn’t do it right! This time it’ll work. Trust us.” Nope.
Professor Turley, I don’t think you are going to persuade young supporters of Zohran and Bernie and their left leaning policies to change their support with the approach of talking down to these young people as you did in this column.
For those who wonder what the words below the image above mean, I believe it reads…
тов. ленин очищает землю от нечисти
“Comrade Lenin is cleansing the earth of evil.”
Mamdani should learn his lesson well. Recent news reports indicate that some wealthy individuals, including prominent figures in the tech industry, are threatening to leave or have taken steps to move their residency and businesses out of California, primarily due to a proposed state wealth tax. This exodus is driven by a mix of political and economic reasons, though a broader, long-term trend of residents leaving California for more affordable states also exists. Who will be left to pay the bills?
It does take a lot of money to relocate but a business looks at it as along term investment like any other investment in infrastructure. Will it pay off in the long run? If you are looking for an answer look at the U-Haul rentals in and out of California. https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/5674558-movers-relocated-to-these-states-the-most-in-2025-u-haul-report-suggests/. California ranked 50th for people moving to the state even with the fantastic weather and beautiful coastlines. Newson for President and Mamdani for VP. That’s surely a ticket you can fall in love with?
Thinkitthrough, your point about capital flight is the real-world feedback loop politicians can’t wish away: when policy signals “we’re coming for your accumulated value,” producers and capital relocate, and the tax base shrinks. What’s ironic is that X argues the opposite dynamic when defending Cuba, saying that access to markets would spark entrepreneurship and wealth creation that “liberalizes” people. Those two claims can’t both be true at once. If markets and entrepreneurship are the engine of prosperity and liberty, then why support policies (Mamdani-style rhetoric, wealth taxes, hostility to ownership) that drive entrepreneurs and capital out? Which is it: wealth creation is the solution, or wealth is the problem?
At this point, it doesn’t even seem fair. The Jihadi Mamdanis in the Democrat Party are doing all of the Republicans’ work for them.
But citing Cuba and South Africa as examples of Socialism working?
Well, it just sounds like they never even expect that question, since their response is so absurd.
Then again, they know they can’t say Sweden or Norway anymore, because those governments push back every time they get accused of being that.
Mamdani will soon realize the vast majority of Americans prefer that “rugged individualism” he hates so much over that “warm collectivism” about which he has wet dreams, because that “individualism” always, and I mean ALWAYS kicks “collectivism’s” a$$. 😉
Are robber barons a better alternative?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_(industrialist)
Anonymous, your knowledge of history is so incomplete. The man who was the trusts buster was Teddy Roosevelt. Little did you know before you made your inane statement that the man was a Republican. Please say thank you Mr. Republican. Care to change your tune?
What about loan sharks and predatory lending?
Anonymous, are you speaking about the Cuban Mafia or the Mexican child traffickers?
Maybe you’re thinking about the MS-13 drug smugglers. Please be more specific. There is so much more that could be said.
Just as the grass is green and the sky is blue the formation of oligarchs within a socialist regime is inevitable. https://democracyinafrica.org/oligarchic-dialectics-power-elites-in-contemporary-south-africa/. They hate the rich but they need the knowledge of the rich to run the infrastructure. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/cubas-mafia-state/. Why do they never ask the rich oligarchs who run their nations to divest themselves of all their interests for the good of the people? I will say for them that after seeing the starvation of millions when Stalin tried to run agriculture they have been smart enough to understand that they need the experience of the Oligarchs to stay in power. In turn the Oligarchs believe that they are in the position that they are in because they have been blessed by God. As usual in a socialist Society every one is happy except the masses still yearning for their freedom. How can anyone believe their crap? X and Anonymous on this forum included.