Introduction
Two U.S. cities – Chicago and New York – are attempting to apply socialist economic planning principles to millions of people.
In the US, we have to distinguish between democratic socialism and the more radical Democratic Socialists of America. Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders favor a European style welfare state with high taxes, on top of capitalism (although Bernie was a great admirer of the Soviet Union). The DSA is a more radical group that favors the establishment of a more traditional socialist/communist state.
Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York is a member of the DSA.
Mayor Brandon Johnson in Chicago is not a formal member of the DSA but is closely aligned. He was strongly supported by the Chicago DSA chapter.
Note: It may not be possible to adopt a true socialist centrally planned economy anywhere in the United States. But I want to show the reader what such an economy looks like. There have been many major (and minor) socialist/communist nations over the past 100 years, and a few, like China, still exist today. If America decides to embrace socialism, we should know what’s coming.
What is the likelihood of success for a socialist economic system?
In order to determine that we have to go back to Lenin, because Lenin was instrumental in setting up the Soviet economic system. The Soviet Union was the first socialist state in the modern Marxist-Leninist framework, and succeeding socialist states over the past century (including China) have used the Soviet model.
We examine a document titled “Planning in the USSR” by the Soviet economist L. Yevenko, issued in 1960, which outlines precisely how a socialist economic system is designed and operated. Yevenko offered his outline with the approval of Lenin, so “Planning in the USSR” can be considered an official document for the establishment of a socialist economy.
The information here is provided from the document itself using the outline provided by Escapekey, in an article of the same name, at escapekey.substack.com.
Let us see how a socialist economy should be set up by examining the technical manual, “Planning in the USSR.” This document is
“252 pages of organizational charts, production tables, and chapter after chapter explaining how the Soviet state managed its economy from the center.”
The most important feature of a socialist economy is that it is managed from the top down. In U.S. cities like New York, a small democratic socialist bureaucracy will plan the economic life of 10 million people. How would this work?
Managing the socialist state
Yevenko begins in the first chapter, outlining the primary function of the socialist state:
“… to organize socialist production with the broad participation of the masses, to manage the economy, to arrange an extremely intricate and delicate system of new organizational relationships extending to the planned production and distribution of goods.”
— L. Yevenko, p.7
In a socialist state, the central authority plans the production and distribution of all goods.
“‘The socialist state manages the national economy in accordance with a single long-term plan’. The plan covers ‘production, distribution, circulation and consumption of the social product — in all the diversity of their interconnections’. At each stage,
“… the socialist state determines the concrete tasks of national economic development, the volume of production, sets the directions, rates and proportions of economic growth, allocates the material, labor and financial resources, establishes the volume of home and foreign trade, sets prices, wages, etc.”
— L. Yevenko, p.8
The entire socialist economy is managed by a small group of persons who write a “single long-term plan” and then micromanage it in every detail, from setting wages and prices to allocating resources and labor to specific industries or areas of the economy. Everything is controlled and planned from the central source, which exists to “guide the masses.”
Organizing “socialist production with the broad participation of the masses” is a very good idea and a description of a free economy. The centrally planned economy does the opposite, relegating decision making not to consumers who will choose the products and services they want, but to a small clique of planners. The centralized system automatically limits choice, but it also (theoretically) limits corruption and fraud. That is one of its attractions to socialists.
The socialist state
“‘also guides the economic activities of co-operative organizations through the system of their elected bodies and its leading agencies.’”
— L. Yevenko, p.9
The socialist state manages elections to ensure that the correct people advance to positions of authority in organizations. Every socialist state over the past 100 years has done this.
I am fascinated to see how far Mamdani and his group of social planners will “guide” the economic activities of labor unions, city contractors, NGOs, and city employees.
Will a centrally planned economy work better?
We’re about to find out through a fascinating social experiment in the Big Apple.[1]
In Chicago, DSA Mayor Brandon Johnson was elected in 2023. The socialist aspects of Johnson’s policies – heavy progressive taxation, focus on redistribution and public services, reduced emphasis on traditional policing – have delivered mixed-to-negative results on the economic front. Crime rates improved substantially in 2025 (a national trend helped by other factors), but the city’s structural budget problems have worsened. Ongoing pressure for higher taxes have resulted in some business and resident flight. Johnson has not instituted a strict socialist economy in Chicago, mainly due to objections from City Council.
Central control and the local levels
The socialist state’s planning function has
’‘an apparatus set up for this purpose, which is part of the state administration and economic management both in the center and in the localities.’” The author of the planning document calls it “‘a major instrument of the socialist state.’” (p.9)
The socialist state makes sure that cities, towns, and villages outside the central planning authority adhere to the ‘single long-term plan.’ This could be a five-year plan or a fifteen-year plan divided into three five year periods.
The socialist state will inevitably grow in power and influence:
‘’… the functions of the state in economic management and planning, far from withering away, steadily grow in scale and importance.’”
—L. Yevenko, p.15
Have we not seen our own federal government grow monstrously in power and authority over the past four decades? I believe that this is by design.
In a socialist state, the central government continually grows, squeezing more and more productivity out of the private sector, in which goods and services flow freely. As national productivity declines, the central government prints more and more money to keep the economy afloat.
What’s the national debt now? $38 trillion and growing!
Here in the US we are resolutely following Yevenko’s socialist planning outline at the federal level.
Is the economy better now than it was 40 years ago? Does the public have more or less choice of goods and services?
Managers
What is the responsibility of the individual manager in a socialist system? According to the planning document, “‘one-man management of production’” is the goal. It
“‘implies the subordination of the personnel to the will of the manager who is vested with the necessary rights and bears full responsibility for the work of the section entrusted to him.’”
— L. Yevenko, p. 13
This wouldn’t be so bad if the manager had some say in how his section is run. But we find out that
“’The state plan assignments are law and must be undeviatingly carried out by all enterprises and economic organizations.’”
— L. Yevenko, p.77
What this says is simple: a directive comes forth from the center – based on the single long-term plan. Individual managers are not only required to follow it, but also bear total responsibility if the policy fails. In a socialist system those at the center of power bear no responsibility for the outcome of their directives. Socialist managers are left hanging out to dry.
We see this in China as CCP officials are removed from positions of power and never heard from again.
Controlling people
Yevenko quotes Lenin:
“’To control people and control the actual fulfillment of tasks — in this, once again in this, and only in this, is now the crux of all our work, all our policies… Systematic control of plan fulfillment is the main way of improving the plans themselves. Control must not be separated from planning work, it precedes the work of drafting the plan, accompanies its elaboration and is the hub of planned guidance of the economy in the process of carrying out the plans.’”
— L. Yevenko, p.203
It appears that the primary objective of the socialist state is control.
Peoples Republic of China vs. Soviet Union – the battle of the socialist states
The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia occurred in 1917. The communist party in China took power in 1949, 32 years later.
The main difference between socialism in Russia and in China is that the Chinese learned from the failure of socialism in the Soviet Union. In the 1980s Deng Xiaoping saw the handwriting on the wall for China’s centrally planned economy and developed the theory of ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics.’ In 1989 the 13th Party Congress praised this theory and China gradually allowed a limited free exchange of goods and services, carefully monitored by the center of power. This limited capitalist system has mitigated the extreme rigidity of the Soviet system and has saved socialism in China (so far), even though it is not really socialism at all.
Socialism and Communism vs Democratic Socialism
For those who say that this article fails to distinguish between socialism and communism, I say nonsense. Socialism is almost synonymous with communism. All of the elements of control in a communist state are found in a socialist state, for a communist dictatorship is but a small step from socialism. Marx and Engels often used “socialism” and “communism” interchangeably. Lenin popularized the idea that socialism is the first, lower stage of communism.
In Europe today¸ democratic socialism is morphing into full socialism as the governments there crack down on free speech and establish digital currencies controlled by the central authority.
In the US the jury is out.
Why?
Why would a group of people think they could plan out an economy that involves millions of people and be successful?
I can think of only two reasons:
1) The group intends to seize power absolutely. Therefore, it doesn’t matter whether the economy is prosperous or not. Example: the Soviet Union.
2) The group is composed of idealistic, well-intentioned persons like Zohran Mamdani and his crew in New York, who see economic injustice and believe they can do better.
The first group are simply anti-social personalities whose desire is power over others. These are the people who set up the secret police, who send thugs out on the street to bash heads, who fail to fill firefighting reservoirs, and who persecute anyone who disagrees with them.
The second group are idealistic persons genuinely interested in making the world a better place.
Can Mamdani find a way to make socialism work?
Why have centrally planned economies failed in the past?
a) For the obvious reason that no group of persons is smart enough to successfully predict the economic decisions of the masses in their millions.
b) The planning authorities are isolated at the center, unaware of the situation in localities. Complete accountability is given to the managers for success or failure, even if the central directives are flawed.
c) The control-from-above principles used in the socialist central planning system go against human nature. People like to control their own lives, thank you! This is a divine impulse and is present in every human being, and life form, on the planet.
d) The group in 2) has always, in the past, devolved to the group in 1). Centrally planned economies have always devolved into totalitarian systems of control (fascism or communism/socialism) to enforce planning decisions that don’t work as planned. It’s why, comrades, the Secret Police and the Interior Ministry in communist countries are always, by far, the most important elements of the socialist/communist state.
e) Supporters of the socialist state are activists who know that within the masses are far too many who believe in dangerous ideas like free will and unfettered free speech. Therefore, these independent thinkers must be constantly monitored and surveilled (the function of the secret police) lest they disrupt social planning. These workers are often independent contractors and those who work for them; workers who must have the intelligence and independence of mind to keep their skills updated in order to repair the vital machinery of society.
Who you gonna call when your car breaks down? When your furnace stops working? When your roof starts leaking? Well, you aint callin’ the graduate from the local university with a liberal arts degree. No, it’s the “undereducated” graduate from a trade school or family business who has the skills necessary to maintain a successful economy and its machinery. In the real world economy, practicality and common sense, not ideology, is primary.
Will socialism work in cities like New York?
Zohran Mamdani and his crew have loudly proclaimed their intentions to “seize the means of production,” as per the planning document above.
His Minister for Housing, Cae Weaver, famously tweeted that
“Private property, including and kind of ESPECIALLY homeownership is a weapon of White Supremacy masquerading as ‘wealth building’ public policy.”
Private property ownership is anathema in a socialist state, for private ownership of wealth-producing assets results in unpredictable activities and hinders socialist control of the economy.
Socialists refer to the transfer of property ownership as “redistribution of wealth” under the banner of “equality.”
Mamdani has already planned his first government owned and managed store – just like the ones in the old Soviet Union:
This was filmed in 1989, 72 years after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. After 72 years of perfecting the socialist planned economy, this is what you get apparently.
In New York, at least Mamdani’s public goals are positive. Even Trump said he would work with him.
But, unfortunately, we already have the beginnings of another failed attempt at socialism. Mamdani has announced that buildings will be seized from “bad landlords” and returned to tenants or NGOs, who already receive massive subsidies from the federal government.
Are there bad landlords in New York? Hell yeah. But who gets to decide who the bad landlords are? Mamdani’s Politburo of course.
The first government owned store in New York City is being established. The store and the land around it will cost the city $30 million. In addition, the city already appropriated $25 million for site improvements. That’s $55 million for one store! The grifting has already started. (It doesn’t take $55 mil to set up one store, so where will the rest of the money go?) My guess is that this store will begin with great hope and eventually turn into the Soviet store in the video above.
Add in rent controls for landlords, millions for affordable housing, and free buses for commuters, and you have lots of money going out of city coffers. Let’s hope that Mamdani’s central planners can make it all work.
Conclusion
Americans are experimenting with socialism and communism, which are failed -isms of the past, as is its counterpart, fascism. After 250 years, capitalism in the United States has been fatally corrupted by greed and fraud. To replace these -isms, psychopaths are designing the ultimate -ism: Collectivism. Collectivism isn’t new but its scope is. Global Governance is a planetary, collectivist techno-dictatorship that will be run by computers and algorithms, written by those who wish to control every resource (and human being) on the planet.
The only question is, will humanity put up with this nonsense?
HELL NO.
People all over the world are waking up to the stupidity of fascism, socialism/communism, and the greed and fraud of capitalism. American experiments with socialism are part of that waking up process, because human beings learn best through experience. Humanity will never accept a global collectivist techno-dictatorship.
I believe we are on the cusp of a new society as people reject the failed control systems of the past.
I look forward to the day we can all get along with each other without any -isms.
[1] In my mind, the primary distinction between capitalism and socialism isn’t ideology but the definition of money. Karl Marx pointed out, in Volume 1, Chapter 4 (“The General Formula for Capital”) of Das Kapital, that there are two functions or flows of money.
1) The first is called C-M-C.
A worker sells his labor for money, then uses it to buy what they need — commodity (the worker’s labor) to money to commodity. Money serves a one-time use. Because interest on money is not needed in a socialist state, the worker does not accumulate value in his money. (But neither do greedy psychopaths.) Money is simply a one-time transaction. The seller of the commodity can turn around and buy something else of equal value, but his money cannot grow. This idea is also used in Muslim countries where Sharia law forbids interest, and usury is a crime.
2) The second money function identified by Marx is called M-C-M’.
Interest on money is the very definition of capitalism. A capitalist begins with money and buys commodities or labor. He sells his commodity or service for more than he bought it for. In capitalist economies, money serves accumulation. The profit — the extra value M’ — is stored value the capitalist can use any way he wants.
A capitalist system creates debt, because P + I > P. In other words, what you borrow (P, the principal) must be paid back with interest (I). However, the money to pay the interest doesn’t exist because it hasn’t been created. So where does the money to pay the interest come from?
The fractional reserve banking system evolved to supply that “extra” cash to pay the interest. The lender (the bank) is allowed to create money out of thin air and credit the borrower’s account, thus providing more currency in the system to pay interest and create economic growth. In socialist economies, government controlled banks provide the money creating function.
In a socialist system, the supply of money never grows unless the State prints more.
In a socialist state, the State issues all monies. This is very similar to the Global Governance system of programmed digital wallets and digital currencies, which are completely controlled by the central government. In both cases, money cannot be used to accumulate wealth.
