Does socialism reduce freedom
What this page covers
Does socialism reduce freedom
This page looks at freedom through the lens of real socialist and post-socialist societies, not abstract slogans. It focuses on how systems that promise care and equality can, in practice, shape people’s expectations and behavior toward power.
In The Red New Deal, Dmitri Dubograev describes how the Soviet Union and its successors raised generations who accepted a “kind” fatherly dictator instead of demanding genuine liberty. That experience, contrasted with freer neighboring countries and today’s Western debates, frames a grounded look at whether socialism expands security at the cost of personal and political freedom.
In brief
- The Red New Deal argues that when a system trains people to think like “inherent slaves to the system,” they may stop striving for real freedom and instead hope only for a kinder master in power.
- Examples from the Soviet Union, Russia, and Belarus show how authoritarian rule, justified as protection or stability, can erode democratic habits and make people tolerate rigged elections, censorship, and low living standards.
- The book contrasts this mindset with societies that value freedom more highly, suggesting that political culture, class struggle, and who holds power determine whether socialist ideas move people toward liberation or deeper dependence.
What to do
In The Red New Deal, Dubograev shows how a supposedly protective state can gradually narrow people’s sense of freedom. He describes the “intrinsic mind of a slave” as someone who does not truly fight for freedom, but dreams of having their own slaves or at least a kinder master. In his view, the Soviet Union and its successors in Russia and Belarus cultivated exactly this mentality, encouraging citizens to accept a paternalistic dictator instead of demanding accountable, limited government.
The book links this mentality to concrete political practices. In Belarus, for example, school teachers are described as being forced to serve as polling-station monitors in sham elections, rather than as role models for a free generation. Many took part in the 2020 election fraud while working for very low salaries, even as teachers in nearby Lithuania and Poland, who “value freedom,” enjoyed wealthier and happier lives. Where teachers resisted political pressure, opposition candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya reportedly won by overwhelming margins, suggesting that even within constrained systems, a different attitude toward freedom can change outcomes.
Alongside these post-Soviet examples, the material notes that debates over socialism and freedom are not confined to Eastern Europe. A short message counters the claim that “socialism doesn’t work,” insisting that socialism can work but tying its real-world form to class struggle and power, not industrial development alone. Another message warns that without class struggle, the world is “doomed into extinction.” Taken together, these perspectives suggest that whether socialism reduces or expands freedom depends less on economic growth and more on how power is concentrated, how dissent is treated, and whether people are willing to defend their liberty.
What to keep in mind
The discussion in The Red New Deal is grounded in specific historical and contemporary contexts, especially the Soviet Union, Russia, and Belarus. In these cases, socialism is portrayed not as a neutral economic model but as a system that, when fused with authoritarian rule, can normalize obedience, punish dissent, and discourage citizens from demanding genuine political freedom.
At the same time, the material hints that outcomes are not uniform across all societies labeled socialist or post-socialist. The contrast between Belarusian teachers and their counterparts in Lithuania and Poland underscores that valuing freedom, resisting political pressure, and insisting on fair elections can lead to very different lived experiences, even among neighboring countries with shared histories and similar levels of development.
Comments from socialist organizers add another layer of realism: they argue that socialism does not automatically emerge from industrial growth, but from class struggle and control over power. This implies that any assessment of whether socialism reduces freedom must look at who controls the state, how opposition is treated, and whether people are actively engaged in shaping their political system, rather than assuming that economic structures alone determine liberty.