Do New Communists Really Want Socialism?

Posted on June 7, 2026 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Dr. David Edward Marcinko; MBA MEd

SPONSOR: http://www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org

***

***

The question of whether new communists truly want socialism is more complicated than it first appears. On the surface, many who identify with contemporary communist or socialist movements claim a desire for a radically transformed society—one without exploitation, extreme inequality, or the dominance of private capital. Yet beneath that shared language lies a wide spectrum of motivations, interpretations, and expectations. Some envision a complete restructuring of economic life, while others use the term “socialism” as shorthand for fairness, security, or moral opposition to corporate power. Understanding whether new communists genuinely want socialism requires examining what they mean by the term, what they hope to change, and how their goals differ from earlier generations.

At the core of the issue is the evolving meaning of socialism itself. Classical socialism referred to collective ownership of the means of production, the abolition of private capital, and the replacement of market competition with planned economic coordination. Many new communists still endorse these principles, but others use “socialism” to describe a more humane version of capitalism—one with stronger welfare systems, universal healthcare, or worker protections. This shift in meaning complicates the question. If someone calls themselves a communist but primarily advocates for reforms within the existing system, do they truly want socialism in the classical sense, or do they simply want a more equitable society?

Another factor is the political identity dimension. For some, communism functions less as a detailed economic program and more as a symbolic rejection of the status quo. In an era marked by rising inequality, precarious work, and corporate concentration, identifying as a communist can be a way of expressing frustration with systems that feel unresponsive or unjust. This symbolic stance does not always translate into a concrete desire for socialist institutions. Instead, it may reflect a longing for dignity, stability, or community—values that could be pursued through various political arrangements, not exclusively socialist ones.

However, it would be a mistake to assume that all new communists are merely using the label for aesthetic or emotional reasons. Many are deeply committed to the traditional socialist vision. They argue that capitalism’s structural incentives—profit maximization, competition, and private ownership—inevitably produce inequality and instability. For these individuals, socialism is not a vague aspiration but a necessary alternative. They advocate for worker‑owned enterprises, democratic planning, and the elimination of private control over essential industries. Their commitment is ideological, strategic, and often grounded in historical analysis.

Still, even among committed socialists, there is debate about how socialism should be achieved. Some favor gradual transformation through democratic institutions, believing that public support and political legitimacy are essential. Others argue that capitalism’s entrenched power structures make peaceful transition impossible. These disagreements reveal that wanting socialism is not a single, unified desire but a constellation of visions and strategies. The diversity within new communist movements suggests that the question cannot be answered with a simple yes or no.

***

***

A further complication is the influence of digital culture. Online spaces have given rise to a form of left‑wing politics that blends humor, irony, and ideological experimentation. Memes, slogans, and symbolic gestures often substitute for detailed political programs. This environment can blur the line between genuine commitment and performative identity. Some participants may adopt communist language as a form of cultural expression rather than a serious political project. Others may begin with irony but develop sincere beliefs over time. The fluidity of online political identity makes it difficult to determine who truly wants socialism and who is participating in a broader cultural trend.

Despite these complexities, one common thread unites many new communists: a desire for economic justice. Whether they envision full socialism or a reformed capitalism, they share a conviction that current systems fail to meet basic human needs. They point to rising costs of living, stagnant wages, and the concentration of wealth as evidence that something fundamental must change. This shared dissatisfaction does not guarantee agreement on solutions, but it does explain why socialism—however defined—has regained appeal.

Ultimately, the question “Do new communists really want socialism?” may be less important than understanding what motivates the resurgence of socialist language in the first place. Many are searching for alternatives to a world that feels increasingly unequal and unstable. Some believe socialism offers a coherent path forward; others use the term as a rallying cry for fairness and dignity. The diversity of motivations suggests that new communists do not form a monolithic group. Some genuinely want socialism in its traditional sense, while others seek a more humane society without fully embracing socialist structures.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: Dr. Marcinko will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit an RFP for speaking engagements: CONTACT: Ann Miller RN MHA at MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com -OR- http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Like, Refer and Subscribe

***

Filed under: iMBA, Inc. | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

What Is Economic Socialism?

Posted on May 28, 2026 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Dr. David Edward Marcinko; MBA MEd

SPONSOR: http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

***

***

Economic socialism is a system of organizing production and distribution in which the major resources of a society—its land, factories, infrastructure, and natural assets—are owned or regulated collectively rather than privately. At its core, socialism seeks to align economic activity with social welfare, ensuring that the benefits of production are shared broadly across the population. While different forms of socialism exist, they all share a foundational belief that the economy should serve the needs of the many rather than generate concentrated wealth for the few.

The starting point for understanding economic socialism is its critique of capitalism. In a capitalist system, private individuals or corporations own the means of production and operate them for profit. Socialists argue that this arrangement inevitably produces inequality because those who own capital accumulate wealth faster than those who rely on wages. Economic socialism responds to this imbalance by shifting ownership or control of key industries to the public. This does not necessarily eliminate markets or private property altogether; instead, it places the most essential sectors—such as energy, transportation, healthcare, or heavy industry—under collective oversight to prevent exploitation and ensure universal access.

A central feature of economic socialism is public ownership, which can take several forms. In some models, the state directly owns and manages industries. In others, workers operate enterprises cooperatively, sharing profits and decision‑making authority. There are also mixed systems in which the state regulates private firms heavily to ensure they operate in the public interest. Regardless of the structure, the goal is to prevent economic power from being concentrated in the hands of a small elite and to democratize the control of productive resources.

Another defining element of economic socialism is central or coordinated planning. Instead of relying solely on market forces to determine what is produced and at what price, socialist systems often use planning mechanisms to align production with social needs. This planning can be highly centralized, with government agencies setting output targets, or more decentralized, with local councils, cooperatives, and community groups participating in decision‑making. The purpose is to avoid the inefficiencies and inequalities that arise when essential goods are distributed based on profit rather than need.

Economic socialism also emphasizes economic security and social welfare. Because the system prioritizes collective well‑being, it typically includes strong social programs such as universal healthcare, free or low‑cost education, affordable housing, and guaranteed employment or income support. These programs are not viewed as charity but as rights that stem from the belief that every member of society deserves a dignified standard of living. Funding for these services usually comes from public revenues generated by state‑owned enterprises, progressive taxation, or both.

Critics of economic socialism argue that public ownership and planning can lead to inefficiency, bureaucracy, and reduced innovation. They claim that without the profit motive, enterprises may lack incentives to improve productivity or respond quickly to consumer preferences. Supporters counter that profit‑driven systems often fail to meet basic human needs, create cycles of boom and bust, and allow private interests to dominate political and economic life. They argue that socialism, when designed effectively, can balance efficiency with fairness by encouraging cooperation, long‑term planning, and equitable distribution.

In practice, economic socialism exists on a spectrum. Some countries adopt democratic socialist or social‑democratic approaches, combining market mechanisms with strong public sectors and extensive welfare systems. Others pursue more comprehensive forms of socialism that minimize private ownership and rely heavily on planning. The diversity of models reflects the flexibility of socialist principles and the different historical, cultural, and political contexts in which they are applied.

Ultimately, economic socialism is an attempt to reshape the relationship between the economy and society. It challenges the idea that markets alone should determine how resources are used and who benefits from them. Instead, it proposes that economic decisions should be guided by democratic participation, social justice, and the collective good. Whether implemented fully or partially, socialism offers a vision of an economy where prosperity is shared, essential needs are guaranteed, and economic power is distributed more evenly across the population.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: Dr. Marcinko will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit an RFP for speaking engagements: CONTACT: Ann Miller RN MHA at MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com -OR- http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Like, Refer and Subscribe

***

Filed under: iMBA, Inc. | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

ENTREPRENEURSHIP: Israel Meir Kirzner’s Theory

Posted on May 24, 2026 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Dr. David Edward Marcinko; MBA MEd

SPONSOR: http://www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org

***

***

Kirzner’s theory places the entrepreneur at the center of market coordination, arguing that markets function not because individuals possess perfect information, but because some individuals are alert to opportunities that others overlook. His work reframes the market as a dynamic, discovery‑driven process rather than a static system tending automatically toward equilibrium. In doing so, Kirzner offers a distinctive account of how coordination emerges in real-world economies marked by uncertainty, dispersed knowledge, and continual change.

At the heart of Kirzner’s framework is the concept of entrepreneurial alertness. Unlike definitions that portray entrepreneurs as innovators, risk‑bearers, or managers, Kirzner emphasizes the entrepreneur’s unique ability to notice previously unseen possibilities. This alertness is not a matter of deliberate search or specialized expertise; it is a readiness to perceive discrepancies in the market—unmet consumer demands, mispriced goods, or underutilized resources. When an entrepreneur recognizes such a discrepancy, they act to exploit it, and in doing so, they help correct the underlying error. This corrective action is what moves markets toward greater coordination.

Kirzner’s understanding of markets is inseparable from his view of knowledge. He argues that economic actors operate with incomplete and unevenly distributed information. No one possesses a full picture of the market, and errors are therefore inevitable. Yet these errors are not signs of market failure. Instead, they create the very conditions that make entrepreneurial discovery possible. The entrepreneur’s alertness allows them to detect what others have missed, and their actions reveal new information to the rest of the market. In this way, discovery is a social process: one person’s insight becomes a signal that guides the decisions of others.

This process is most clearly expressed through profit and loss, which Kirzner interprets as feedback mechanisms. Profit is the reward for having perceived an opportunity that others overlooked. It indicates that the entrepreneur has moved the market closer to a more coordinated state. Loss, by contrast, signals that the entrepreneur’s judgment was mistaken or that conditions have shifted. These signals are essential because they guide behavior without requiring any central authority. They allow countless individuals to adjust their plans in response to new information, creating a spontaneous order that no planner could design.

Kirzner’s theory also offers a distinctive view of competition. Rather than treating competition as a static state characterized by many firms producing identical goods, he describes it as a dynamic process of discovery. Entrepreneurs compete by being more alert than others—by noticing opportunities sooner or interpreting signals more effectively. This competitive process continually reshapes the market, pushing it toward greater coordination even as new opportunities and errors emerge. Competition, in Kirzner’s sense, is not a condition but an activity.

***

***

A key implication of this view is that markets are inherently open-ended. Because knowledge is never complete and conditions are always changing, the discovery process has no final equilibrium. Even if markets move toward coordination, new opportunities constantly arise. This makes the entrepreneur indispensable: without entrepreneurial alertness, markets would stagnate, and errors would persist uncorrected. The entrepreneur is the agent through whom markets learn.

Kirzner’s theory stands in contrast to other influential accounts of entrepreneurship. For example, while Schumpeter emphasizes innovation and “creative destruction,” Kirzner focuses on discovery and error correction. Schumpeter’s entrepreneur disrupts the market by introducing something fundamentally new; Kirzner’s entrepreneur restores coordination by recognizing what already exists but has not been noticed. These two views highlight different aspects of economic change, but Kirzner’s approach is more closely tied to the everyday functioning of markets and the continual adjustments that keep them coherent.

Kirzner’s insights also have implications for policy. Because entrepreneurial discovery depends on freedom of entry, flexible prices, and open competition, regulations that restrict these conditions can unintentionally suppress the discovery process. Barriers to entry reduce the number of individuals scanning the environment for overlooked opportunities. Price controls distort the signals that guide entrepreneurial judgment. Excessive regulation can therefore freeze the market in a state of uncorrected error. Kirzner does not argue that all regulation is harmful, but he warns that policymakers often underestimate the subtle, decentralized nature of discovery.

Ultimately, Kirzner’s theory presents a vision of markets as learning systems. Entrepreneurs are not heroic figures but ordinary individuals who happen to notice what others have missed. Their discoveries, guided by profit and loss, help coordinate the plans of millions of people who will never meet. Markets, in this view, are not perfect, but they are adaptive. They evolve through the continual interplay of error and discovery, ignorance and alertness. Kirzner’s contribution lies in showing that the true strength of markets is not their tendency toward equilibrium, but their capacity for self‑correction through entrepreneurial action.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: Dr. Marcinko will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit an RFP for speaking engagements: CONTACT: Ann Miller RN MHA at MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com -OR- http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Like, Refer and Subscribe

***

Filed under: iMBA, Inc. | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

ROBERT LUCAS PARADOX: Law of Diminishing Returns

Posted on January 28, 2025 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Staff Reporters

***

***

Capital is not flowing from developed countries to developing countries despite the fact that developing countries have lower levels of capital per worker, and therefore higher returns to capital.

Classical economic theory predicts that capital should flow from rich countries to poor countries, due to the effect of diminishing returns of capital. Poor countries have lower levels of capital per worker – which explains, in part, why they are poor. In poor countries, the scarcity of capital relative to labor should mean that the returns related to the infusion of capital are higher than in developed countries.

In response, savers in rich countries should look at poor countries as profitable places in which to invest. In reality, things do not seem to work that way. Surprisingly little capital flows from rich countries to poor countries.

This puzzle, famously discussed in a paper by Robert Lucas in 1990, is often referred to as the “Lucas Paradox”.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

Thank You

***

***

Filed under: "Ask-an-Advisor", Ethics, Experts Invited, Funding Basics, Glossary Terms, iMBA, Inc., Investing, Taxation | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »