Why You Should Be a Socialist by Nathan Robinson

Why You Should Be A Socialist
by Nathan J. Robinson
All Points Books, 2019

Nathan J. Robinson, “a leading voice of millennial left politics” and editor of Current Affairs, badly wants to be taken seriously. But not too seriously. Serious enough to burden the task of explaining Why You Should Be A Socialist, the title of the book, and to answer pressing questions like, “what are other political ideologies and why are they bad?” Serious enough to “Show you…thoroughly and persuasively…leftist politics are not just consistent and reasonable, but that elementary moral principles compel us all to be leftists and socialists.” But not so serious he feels the need to address anything too completely. For example, early on Robinson looks forward to “frustrating terminological discussions,” adding in a parenthetical “We will try to get this sorted out as quickly as possible, so that everyone can go home early.” At one point we are sarcastically informed, “Yes, now we have to talk about neoliberalism. I’m sorry. I wish we didn’t; but we do.” Indeed the feeling that “Yes, now we have to talk about” this or that pervades the book; it does not read well with his desire for to you just agree with him already and produces arguments that are, in a word, lacking.

Nonetheless, he claims to write under the assumption that “you don’t consider yourself a socialist,” that “Perhaps you are among those skeptics who think we who embrace the term socialism are naïve at best and outright dangerous at worst.” And to reinforce the arduousness of his task, Robinson provides “a few representative contributions from the comments section of a YouTube video explaining socialism.”

This becomes a problem because writing a book addressing someone who has a problem with you (as naïve and dangerous) rather than your positions, and lives in the YouTube comments section, is an entirely different task than addressing an honest critic.

Moreover, for someone with “a strong viewpoint, but” understands “it is the writer’s job to convince the reader,” he is rather caustic and overbroad in characterizing the world-view held by those he is attempting to persuade. The book is peppered with comments along these lines: “Because the right’s positions are abhorrent…, and most people reject them, it has taken a very deliberate effort to keep the county from enacting economically leftist policies.” And, “At the heart of my objection to conservatism, in all its forms, is its fundamental meanness.” He uses ingratiating language, but is also insulting (“because you are a reasonable person, I am sure you are now basically sold on becoming a leftist”). He elevates important issues in earnest, but writes in remarkably flippant language (with vulgarities throughout, as is tradition on the left). Much of this originates from something that becomes obvious quite early on: Robinson views the superiority of his socialist position, and the depravity of the right, as entirely self-evident.

Actually, it’s worse than this. Not only does he turn ‘the right’ into the most capacious political category, not only does he criticize its most vulgar expressions while extoling socialism in the rosiest of terms, it is not always obvious he has read what he is criticizing. That or he’s lying.

Take an example: In a chapter titled Response to Criticisms, which operates like a genocide for straw-men, Robinson turns to a serious critic of socialism, Ludwig Von Mises, quoting from his book Socialism. As quoted, Mises appears to be arguing that because America is the best example of a capitalist country, and the Soviet Union the best example of a socialist country, capitalism is plainly superior given the United State’s higher standard of living.

This of course demonstrates that “people who make this type of argument are not always intellectually honest…For that to be true, the United States and the Soviet Union would have to be similarly situated when the ‘experiment’ began.”

But it is not Mises who is being intellectually dishonest. If we thumb to the relevant pages of Socialism, not only is Mises reciting the point about efficiency as a “main objection raised against socialism,” a major point of the section is his disapproval of the methodology that treats the situation in Russia as an experiment akin to the natural sciences. He even argues that if we assume the poor situation in Russia was in spite of socialism, “All that could be said is this: the fact that the masses’ standard of living is low in Russia does not provide conclusive evidence that socialism is inferior to capitalism.” Again, either Robinson is lying, or he has not read the book. Finally, it is intensely bizarre this paragraph is the one thing anyone who has read the book would feel necessitates rebuttal, and advertises an ignorance of the methodology Mises is known for and pains to make unambiguous.

Robinson’s book is also littered with poor reasoning and thinly disguised authoritarian impulses. He argues “Your pre-tax income cannot entirely be ‘yours,’ because in order for you to have an income at all, there must be a large, powerful government, and for there to be a government there must be taxation.” With a lack of self awareness that permeates the book, he doesn’t realize he refuted himself. If the government requires taxation to exist, a market where people are earning income would have to precede it. Incidentally, ‘yours’ appears in scare quotes more than anyone should be comfortable with. And in a kind of tamed Maoism, Robinson asserts that “Ideas mean very little unless they are translated into political power.”

Nathan J. Robinson badly wants to be taken seriously and seems to believe the inconvenience of writing a book is the way to achieve such status. But he wrote the whole in the same manner as the section on terminology: “as quickly as possible, so that everyone can go home early.” Unfortunately, desultory writing produces desultory books. Fortunately, Why You Should Be A Socialist will make a terrific gag gift over the holiday season.

—David Murphy holds a Masters of Finance from the University of Minnesota.