Progressive, Really? Democratic Socialism's Reactionary—and Lethal—Foundation

Thinking morally Right or Wrong about the “Warmth of Collectivism”—and its radical antidote.

Progressivism is supposed to mean moving forward. It implies innovation, moral growth, and a willingness to discard ideas that have failed—especially ideas that have failed repeatedly, catastrophically, and with grim consistency. Yet when today’s democratic socialists like Zohran Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez regurgitate policies rooted in “the warmth of collectivism” (as the former recently emoted), state control, and wealth redistribution, one has to ask: progressing toward what, exactly? Because if history is any guide, the destination looks suspiciously like been there, done that.

Despite fresh branding, Instagram-ready slogans, and a hip New York aesthetic, today’s democratic socialism is not radical or new. No, it is deeply reactionary; a recycling of moral and political ideas that have already been tried, tested, and thoroughly discredited by every collectivist regime that has implemented them, no matter if socialist, communist, theocratic or fascist/Nazi.

For many subscribers to Think Right or Wrong, Not Left or Right, this doesn’t come as a surprise. But as democratic socialism refuses to go away, let’s recap why collectivism and its political expression, statism, are immoral—and why individualism and capitalism are their moral antidotes. Perhaps it will lead to one or two Mamdani followers having second thoughts (do share among progressive family members and friends, or gift them a copy of the book). Let’s dive in.

At its core, collectivism is the idea that the individual exists to serve the group, whether that group is “the people,” “the working class,” “society,” a race, faith, nation, family, majority, minority, or some other classification. Under collectivism, moral worth is not inherent in the individual but derived from one’s contribution and sacrifice to collective goals as defined by the leadership of the group in charge.

This worldview treats human beings not as sovereign agents with their own lives to live, but as resources to be managed. It justifies coercion—taxes, regulations, mandates, expropriations—on the grounds that some people’s labor, income, or property may be rightfully seized for the benefit of others.

History has refuted this idea, and for good reasons. From the Soviet Union to Nazi Germany and Maoist China, from Cuba to Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and from North Korea to Venezuela, collectivism has led to the same results: economic collapse, political repression, mass poverty, and the systematic violation of individual rights, including the death of millions, and suffering of countless more. These outcomes are not accidents. They flow directly from a moral framework that subordinates the individual to the collective and empowers the state to enforce that subordination. The only “warmth” it radiates is from the living hellfire.

Democratic socialism attempts to soften this reality by promising kinder administrators and gentler rhetoric. But the moral premise remains unchanged: individuals are means to collective ends, and the state is the enforcer. Lipstick on a pig.

Whether it wears the uniform of communism, fascism/Nazism, theocracy, or democratic socialism, the political expression of collectivism is statism: the belief that the state should control economic and social life in pursuit of collective goals. It assumes that centralized authority can plan outcomes better than free individuals acting on their own knowledge and values.

Statism always expands. Once the state is empowered to redistribute wealth, regulate speech, or control production “for the common good,” there is no principled limit to its reach. Every problem becomes an excuse for more power, more taxation and more regulation.

History shows that statism does not eliminate inequality: it entrenches it, replacing market competition with political favoritism. It does not protect the vulnerable: it makes them dependent. And it does not foster solidarity: it breeds resentment and conflict.

The truly progressive move would be to abandon these failed collectivist/statist ideals altogether and embrace individualism and the only social system that has consistently delivered freedom, prosperity, and human flourishing: capitalism, grounded in the respect for and protection of individual rights, including property rights.

Individualism begins with a simple but truly radical proposition: each person is an end in themselves, not a sacrificial animal for society. Every individual has a moral right to their own life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; not as permissions granted by the state, but as inherent rights that exist prior to government.

Under individualism, people are free to think, produce, trade, innovate, and associate voluntarily. Cooperation is not centrally planned. Instead of being coerced by law, it emerges through mutual consent, shared benefit, and voluntary exchange.

This is the moral foundation that made scientific progress, artistic achievement, and economic growth possible on an unprecedented scale over the past 200 years. It is also the foundation that democratic socialists are undermining by framing success as exploitation, wealth as theft, and independence as selfishness.

Ironically, individualism is the most inclusive moral system imaginable. It does not divide people into classes, identity groups, or moral hierarchies like collectivism. It recognizes one standard for all: equal rights, equally protected.

Capitalism, the only social system compatible with individualism, is not a system of cronyism, or corporate or political favoritism. It is a system based on private property, voluntary exchange, and the rule of law, with the sole function of a very limited government being the protection of individual rights.

In a capitalist system, wealth is not seized or redistributed by force. It is created by individuals who offer goods or services that others freely choose to buy. Profit is not evidence of exploitation; it is evidence of value creation.

Capitalism aligns morality with reality. It rewards productivity, innovation, and responsibility while allowing people to fail, learn, and try again, without bureaucrats deciding who deserves what. This is why capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty, extended life expectancy, and expanded opportunities wherever it has been allowed to function. Calling capitalism “unjust” while advocating systems that require constant coercion is not progressive. It is a moral abomination.

The irony of modern progressives is that they present themselves as bold and forward-thinking while clinging to reactionary ideas that have failed every time they have been tried. Dressing collectivism in kinder language does not change its immoral essence or its real-world consequences.

For democratic socialists who are genuinely in favor of progress—moral, social, and economic—the path forward is not more state control, more redistribution, and more collective sacrifice. No, the path forward is a commitment to individual rights, limited government, and capitalism based on freedom, not force. Unlike collectivism, it will result in both material and spiritual warmth. That is truly radical.