偶尔，一项民意调查或一张图表真的能够完整地概括我们作为一个国家所面临的全部问题。根据经济创新集团的一项调查，民主党人对社会主义持净有利态度，领先31个百分点。是的，社会主义。即前苏联、古巴和朝鲜的经济体制——过去100年里如此多的独裁政权所采用的体制，这些政权曾让人民挨饿并遭受压迫。地球上怎么可能有任何美国政治群体对这种体制持有利态度？
Every now and then, a poll or a chart really encapsulates the entire problem we face as a country. According to a survey by the Economic Innovation Group, Democrats have a net favorable view of socialism by 31 points. Yes, socialism. The economic system of the old Soviet Union, and Cuba, and North Korea — of so many dictatorships over the last 100 years that have starved and oppressed their people. How on earth could any American political constituency have favorable view of that?
与此同时，根据这完全相同的调查，民主党人，就像共和党人、独立人士、年轻人、老年人以及所有可调查的人口统计群体一样，都认为税收太高。温和自由派评论家马修·伊格莱西亚斯将此描述为现代民主党的“奇怪演变”，但在一定程度上，这也只是描述了美国人一般的状况：很多人希望拥有更完善的福利国家，但他们却不知道该如何为其买单——事实上，他们已经认为自己缴纳的税太多了。
At the same time, according to this exact same survey, Democrats, like Republicans, independents, young people, old people and every survey-able demographic there is, all think taxes are too high. Moderate liberal commentator Matthew Yglesias describes this as the “strange evolution” of the modern Democratic Party, but to some extent it just describes Americans in general: A lot of people want a more robust welfare state, but they have no idea how to pay for it — and in fact, they already think they pay too much.
左翼影响者和媒体人物试图通过向支持者灌输一种观念来解决这一两难局面：即使对大多数人降低税收，只要对最富有的美国人加税，我们就能产生更多的财政支出。比如，从埃隆·马斯克那里 confiscate 更多财富。但这一计划的问题在于，它根本行不通。认为我们能够通过这种方式平衡预算纯属幻想。极少数富豪已经承担了税收的压倒性份额。
Leftist influencers and media figures have tried to solve this dilemma by gaslighting their supporters into thinking that we generate much more spending, even with lower taxes on most people, if we just raise taxes on the very wealthiest Americans. Confiscate more wealth from Elon Musk, that sort of thing. The problem with this plan is that it would not work at all. It is a fantasy that we can balance the budget that way. The very rich already pay an overwhelming share of the taxes.
可供进一步榨取的空间其实并不大。正如经济学家杰西卡·赖德尔所指出的：“自称社会主义者期望对超级富豪征税来为全面社会主义买单。这其实更像是懒惰的免费午餐经济学，而非共同牺牲的理论。而政客们则通过许诺免费午餐来迎合这种心态。”而且是的，政客们应为此负责。他们总是承诺提供更多福利，但其实并不想对老年人增税——而老年人恰恰是政府福利的主要受益者。
There’s just not that much more to squeeze. As the economist Jessica Riedl notes: “Self-described socialists expect taxes on the super-wealthy to finance all of socialism. Its not a theory of shared sacrifice as much as lazy free lunch economics. And politicians feed that by promising free lunches.”And yes, the politicians are to blame. They’re always guaranteeing more stuff but they don’t actually want to raise taxes on seniors, who receive most of the government benefits.
最好的情况下，或者最坏的情况下，他们会支持对年轻美国人的所得税和财产税的增加，因为这些人不投票。顺便说一句，这实际上根本不是社会主义。坦率地说，我不相信大多数自称对社会主义持积极看法的民主党人实际上知道社会主义是什么。太多人似乎认为社会主义仅仅意味着政府在健康、教育和福利上花更多的钱。
At best, or at worst, they’ll support increases on income taxes and property taxes for younger Americans because these people don’t vote. By the way, none of this is actually socialism. To be honest, I don’t even believe most Democrats who say they have a positive view of socialism actually know what it is. All too many people seem to believe that socialism just means the government spends more money on health and education and welfare.
那不是社会主义。一个国家可以是积极的资本主义国家，同时仍然在福利上花很多钱，这只是北欧大部分国家的情况。社会主义是一种经济体系，在这种体系中，工人夺取生产资料的控制权，这实际上意味着一个强大的中央政府代表工人（表面上）指挥社会的所有资源。在社会主义体制下，根深蒂固且不受问责的政府官僚机构决定哪些工厂生产什么商品，与谁贸易，你能得到多少食物，以及所有这些类似的事情。
That is not socialism. You can be a vigorously capitalist country and still spend lots of money on welfare, that’s just most of northern Europe. Socialism is an economic system in which the workers seize the control of the means of production, which in practice means that a powerful central government directs all the resources in society, ostensibly on behalf of the workers. Under socialist systems, entrenched and unaccountable government bureaucracies decide which factories produce which goods, who to trade with, how much food you get, all of those sorts of things.
这是一个有趣的想法，但它从来从来从来都不起作用，因为没有一个运作良好的自由市场——企业在其中竞争，以人们愿意支付的最有效价格提供商品和服务——你实际上根本无法计算价格，因此没有人知道如何评价一种商品高于另一种商品，结果是大规模贫困。实施这种体系将是非常、非常、非常糟糕的，坦率地说，大多数自称为社会主义者的基层人士甚至似乎并不想这样做。
It’s an interesting idea, and it never ever ever works, because without a functioning free market, where firms compete to offer goods and services at the most effective price that people are willing to pay, you actually can’t calculate prices at all, so nobody knows how to value one good over another, and the result is mass poverty. It would be a very, very, very bad to enact this system, and frankly it doesn’t seem like most self-described socialists at the ground level even want to do it.
然而，在精英层面，美国民主社会主义者（DSA）的成员——目前正在接管该党的组织——确实想要实施真正的社会主义，或类似的东西。他们的议程主张废除市场资本主义并推翻宪法。这是危险且激进的，正是像安吉·尼克松、克莱尔·瓦尔德兹和达丽丽萨·阿维拉·谢瓦利埃这样的人在进入国会后将试图实现的目标。
At the elite level, however, the members of the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA, which is currently taking over the party, actually does want to implement real socialism, or something similar to it. Their agenda calls for abolishing market capitalism and overturning the Constitution. It’s dangerous and radical, and it’s exactly what people like Angie Nixon and Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier will try to accomplish when they get into Congress.
对于那些说自己对社会主义持有好感，但如果政府真的走到提高税收这一步，他们会非常生气的人：你们等着瞧吧，新一届当选的民主党立法者们即将采取的行动，你们肯定不会喜欢的！罗比·索维是《国会山报》评论节目《崛起》的联合主持人，也是《理性》杂志的高级编辑。本文是他每日评论的编辑稿。
So to anyone who says they have a favorable view of socialism, but they’d be really mad if the government went to so far as to raise their taxes: Just you wait and see what the new crop of elected Democratic legislators are going to do. You won’t like it very much! Robby Soave is co-host of The Hill’s commentary show “Rising” and a senior editor for Reason Magazine. This column is an edited transcription of his daily commentary.