Progressives who lean socialist used to hide their worst intentions. Now they are letting it all hang out.
There have always been overt socialists in the U.S., of course. They would sometimes protest the reluctance of fellow travelers to fully embrace socialism’s moniker. But the sentiment “Ah, screw it, let’s just admit we want to destroy everything currently in existence” seems on the ascendance. Even a few major Democratic candidates for president are on board.
Exhibit 112 is the new nationwide push to stomp the gig economy.
Especially freelancing.
This follows Exhibit 111, the recent and so far successful push to stop independent contractors from engaging in voluntary transactions in California. (Many lawsuits are underway.)
After scanning the coiled legalese of 111 — I mean AB5, California’s law — many companies decided that ending relationships with California-based freelancers was prudence with a capital P. And that rhymes with G, and that stands for Golden. Which the Golden State used to, uh, B.
Not every self-employed person has been thrown out onto the street. There are carve-outs. Actually, the only known victims are taxi drivers, cleaners, nurses, comedians, writers, editors, musicians, transcriptionists, citizen initiative petitioners, etc., etc.
The crackdown on non-9-to‑5 work arrangements has also resulted in much gnashing of teeth by gig-seekers of all ideological stripes.
Obviously, then, such massive destruction of economic freedom must be inflicted on the federal level too. So House Democrats put AB5’s gig-killing provisions into Exhibit 112, that is, into HR2474, pending legislation.
Democratic candidates for president Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders have endorsed the California statute, a national version, or both.
Ludwig von Mises had a word for this. He called socialism “destructionist.”
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
3 replies on “The Anti-Worker Ism”
It’s odd that these so-called socialists would have trouble with the gig economy. Worker control of the means of production is the traditional DEFINITION of socialism.
Good point.
But socialism was never about what socialists said it was about. If socialists wanted worker control of the means of production, they could have implemented it through mechanisms in capitalism. What they wanted was the Millennium, the Eschaton — a revolution to destroy those they hated and envied, one that would MAGICALLY usher in heaven on Earth. Earnest and intellectual socialists may not believe that. But most do. Or, their explicit beliefs are irrelevant. They have bitten into the fruit, and that fruit tempts them with total state power.
Ben Tucker was probably right: the only real socialists are the ones who remain true to their alleged principles by insisting on freedom and foreswearing total state power. But that is too much to ask of normal humans, who, when given an End Time dream, must turn to the only Power they know to implement it: the Total State.