Editor's Note: This transcript was automatically transcribed, so mistakes are inevitable. You can contribute by proofreading the transcript or highlighting the mistakes. Sign up to be amongst the first contributors.
De Souza. When he's sitting, yeah. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we are rolling into another episode of the Kandace Owens Show, and I almost forgot to ask you all, how did you like your free trial of socialism in America?
I was one of the first people who spoke out against the coronavirus narrative and the overreach of the government in that scenario. I disagreed with everyone left and right who were so fearful that they felt that the government needed to place certain restrictions. They needed to ban our freedoms to keep us safe safety. It's all about safety for all government's sake. It's for your safety when they bar your freedoms. We saw long lines going into the grocery store.
We had police officers that were told that they needed to monitor where people could walk, where they could go, at, what time they could go, places.
We had business owners told that they could not open their businesses. They had to they were forced to close down many people going into into real depression, emotionally and economic depression following all of this, all of this because the government needed to keep us safe.
So it really is just a tiny, little, teeny bit of a dose of what a world under a socialist order would look like here in America. In fact, I was shocked when I saw politicians, namely Alexander Cosio Cortez, cheering on her Twitter feed saying, See, I told you socialism could work. Who was having a good time during the coronavirus shutdown? Who said to themselves, we need more of this. People lining up for unemployment, suddenly more government dependency.
We are seeing this take place in America, the spread of socialist ideals and principles in a way that we have never seen it before.
Do you even know what socialism is?
Here to answer that question and to talk more about socialism around the world, I have the author of the upcoming book, The United States of Socialism, and many other books. I also love The Big Lie.
Dinesh D'Souza, welcome to the candidate's own show. Thank you. Looking forward to it. I will tell you this.
Your book is timely. And I'll ask you this question. How have we got here? It's a surprise.
Socialism appeared to collapse at the end of the last century. In the twentieth century, socialism flourished at the beginning.
In fact, it covered about 60 percent of all the real estate in the planet. All the big countries Russia, China, India, were under the socialist thumb.
And then at the end of the century, boom, it all went down, Reagan said. We had put socialism on the ash heap of history and I thought so too.
And so the revival of socialism in the 21st century is surely an event of great importance. In fact, socialism has never been in the mainstream of American history. There have been socialist candidates in the past, guys like Eugene Debs, a fellow named Norman Thomas. But they were always marginalized now, not just with Bernie Sanders or Cosio Cortez, but with the mainstream of the Democratic Party embracing socialist ideas. Socialism is in the forefront in a way it's never been before, so that requires explanation.
I think the short answer is we're dealing with a new type of socialism. The socialists say today, no, no, no, we're not trying to replicate the socialism of Mao or Stalin or Lenin. Our socialism is new in key respects. We're trying to do essentially do what previous socialism failed to do.
Yeah, previous socialism has failed, meaning 100 million people have been killed under socialist regimes in the last 100 years. And yet they think that they can somehow replicate it and make it better.
Yeah, you may know it's almost like socialism means never having to say you're sorry, right? You can you can forget about history. You can erase history. You can start anew. Here's my point. Socialism is, in fact, the most discredited ideas in slavery.
The great thinkers on socialism, from Hayek to Soldier Needsome and others have always seen socialism as a form of slavery. That's why Hayek's book is called The Road to Serfdom. And yet, if someone were to say about slavery, you know what? It was kind of a good idea. But the implementation was always flawed. This time we're going to get it right. Most people would think that person was clinically insane. Yet this is exactly what people say about socialism.
They say, hey, we've tried and tried and failed. But you know what? This time we're going to make it work. And I think that there's a certain kind of craziness in socialism, the ideas and the tactics. And we're seeing it all around us.
All right. We're seeing it all around us. But we are especially seeing it being perpetuated by young people. Young people really believe that this can work. There's a socialist is really it is a form of idealism. It's great on paper. I mean, who doesn't want everything to be free?
Of course, you can turn around to a four year old and say, how should the world want? And they'd say, how should the world run? And they say everything should be free, nobody should have to work. It's a great idea on paper, but it doesn't work.
So my question is, how is it so how are so many young people not aware of not just our modern socialist history, but our socialist present, what's presently happening in Venezuela?
That is what sort of boggles my mind.
So the socialism that we're pursuing is, in fact, the socialism of Venezuela. There are close parallels between Venezuelan socialism and American socialism.
However, the official doctrine of the left here is to deny that. And it's to say the socialism that they're pursuing, they say, is socialism of Scandinavia. So they say, look, we know that Venezuela is in a miserable state, but that's not what we're doing. We like the way people live in Norway and Sweden.
You know, it's not that bad to live over there, is it? So why don't we import that form of socialism here?
Now, the key thing to realize is that with the Scandinavians, they are actually capitalist in wealth creation, socialist in wealth distribution. Now, on the wealth creation side, they never kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
They have low corporate tax rates, about 20 percent, same as here. They have no minimum wage. They have less regulation.
You can actually hire and fire people for any reason. They have no wealth tax with one exception. They have no inheritance tax. The kind of financial transaction fees that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have proposed for America that exists in no Scandinavian country. One Scandinavian country, Finland, tried the universal basic income. It didn't work. They got rid of it. So the Scandinavians are actually they want to create a big pie now when they distribute it. And here is the key point.
They impose the burden on the whole society. So they have high tax rates on the middle class, typically 50 percent in Sweden. If you make seventy thousand dollars, you start off by turning half of that thirty five thousand to the government.
So they don't practice this politics of demonizing the rich. The rich will pay. I'm going to rob Peter to pay Paul so I can get Paul's vote. The Scandinavians don't do that. So the truth of it is that the American left says we want to be like Scandinavia, but they don't want to follow the Scandinavian model.
You know, it's actually it reminds you when you're saying that I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said who is the most immoral Disney hero ever created. And the answer was Robin Hood. Right. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor. You learn that, oh, God, this is so great. It's actually the most immoral thing you could possibly do. And I want to get into this because I actually don't think that a lot of these young people, especially when we're seeing the education system, go down the drain, where they're learning less, they're not as smart.
Kids are getting worse, grades are knowing less.
They're not competing at the same level that, you know, people that graduated high school and college were competing at in decades past. And they're making that school system easier so that people will graduate at a higher rate, despite the fact that the people that are graduating are not smart anymore. Right. They're not as smart as they were, if you will. And and when you talk about that, this education system, you can also realize that they don't actually teach people what socialism is.
These students have no idea what it is. Right. So let's just get to the basics here. Why? First off, what is socialism?
Socialism is it's a little bit of an amoeba term because there was socialism before Marx. The earliest forms of socialism were voluntary communities of people who came together. Typically like one hundred guys, they pooled all their stuff and they shared everything. In fact, there was kind of a free love component of these communities as well. So these were essentially voluntary communities of people who wanted to live together and not have inequality.
Now, Marx came along and basically said, you people are fools. You can do what you want, but this is no model for the world.
And Marx introduced the concept of class division. So for Marx, the world is divided into two groups of people, basically the rich and the poor. Marx calls them the proletariat or the working class and then the capitalist class.
And for Marx, there's always a fight between these two groups and which will eventually end with the workers being so oppressed that they will overthrow the capitalist class and take over.
And then you would have sort of the perfect society. What's interesting about American socialism is it incorporates this Marxism class division, but it adds other forms of division. So for American socialist now, it's not just rich against poor, it's black against white. It's male against female. It's straight against gay. It is legal against illegal. So I call this identity socialism because it's a marriage of classic socialism and identity politics.
So you can almost say that the leftists today are more divisive than Marx because they want to cut up society eight different ways. And their goal is to cobble together a majority coalition of 51 percent of oppressed victims. That's what they're after, so they're worse than Robin and Robin Hood basically didn't keep it for himself, he had nothing to gain in the Robin Hood story. He was doing it because he was Robin Hood. But see, these politicians have a lot to gain.
What they're basically saying is, you know, I'm going to rob Peter to pay Paul so I can count on Paul's vote.
So there's something in it for them. These are Robin Hoods who are advancing themselves in the name of helping the poor.
That's exactly right. And you saw so much of that. You know what I was looking through? You know, people that were just absolutely desperate to get a check because they couldn't go to work and nobody actually read the legislation that they were putting forth, what else they were passing at the exact same time, essentially making sure that they could guarantee that their party would have power when they were proposing all of these stimulus. You know, we're going to give everybody twelve hundred dollars check.
Well, it wasn't just a one page.
We're going to give everybody a twelve hundred dollars to get you through the coronavirus relief. You know, it was five hundred pages packed in. And we also want to harvest ballots. So we want this much money to go to Harvard. You know, people that create the research papers that say everything that the Democrats basically say are true and that's the danger, is that you put people in this position. And in my opinion, they essentially want to welfare, welfarism, America.
You want to welfarize America and have people need the government, you know, need the government to turn on the lights and again, get that in that way, guaranteeing voters because you need that money, you're relying on it because you can't go to work. And it's so, so immoral. But I want you to answer this question is there seems to be a lot of confusion. What is, if anything, the difference between socialism and communism?
And I'm again, going to rely to Margaret Thatcher, quote, where she says, socialism is suicide and and communism, communism is homicide. You know, you can you can elect elect socialism, but you're going to end up with communism because that's how you have to implement it, keep it alive.
A good way to think about it is that communism is a political system and socialism is at root an economic system. They're cousins. They go well together. The Soviet Union was communist and socialist and at some point it overthrew both. So the Soviet Union now has a certain type of gangster capitalism, but it's neither a communist nor socialist. But look at China. China was a communist socialist society.
It got rid of the socialism by moving toward a peculiar type of market system, a market system controlled by the state, but nevertheless a relatively free market. But it kept its communist political structure intact. So no democracy, no free elections, controlling the lives of the people. But they can work. They can become millionaires. They can they can make products. They can gain money.
So communist China's a really good example of the way of preserving communism while jettisoning socialism. Right.
Because they keep that totalitarian system in place.
Do you think that that lasts long term or whether eventually be a clash of the Chinese are the kind of offering their citizens a bargain, which is that you've been poor, desperately starving peasants for for millennia? We're going to basically fill your stomach. And we don't want you to say one word about your rights because we're giving you something you've never had before. And they're trying to keep the Chinese content with that bargain. And that's the question.
Turning to coronaviruses for a second, you know, the left needs today the politics of fear. This is kind of why they try to whip us into a frenzy all the time. See, Marx thought you wouldn't need any of this. Marx thought that the revolution was scientific. It would come automatically. You don't even have to fight for it because it's going to happen by a law of history. But nowhere did the workers revolt against the capitalist class, not in Marxist time and not to this day anywhere in the world.
So the left has realized Marx was wrong about that.
There's nothing scientific about socialism. What we need is panic. So FDR discovered in the depression. I can do all kinds of stuff that I could never have done if we weren't in this Great Depression.
And then since the 70s, the left is like we're running out of food in the eighties nuclear apocalypse in the nineties, the ozone layer is going away. The last twenty years, climate change, the oceans are rising and now coronavirus, the theme is the same.
We want to take rational people and create a crowd stampede. So because crowds behave differently than rational individuals in the crowd, if you can get people to think that their lives are in danger and they have to run, then they behave in ways they do, things they submit to irrationality and the left thrives.
And that is exactly right. And I'm so glad you said that, because really in chaos, dictatorship can arise. And what I mean by that is it's so easy for them to pass legislation and people don't think twice. And looking at this coronavirus situation, I was shocked to see people that I deeply respect on the right falling for this. They were they mean they were so scared. And what the left did is they finally found something that even conservatives who understand why we need to have our freedoms are afraid of.
And that's death. Right. So this idea that we've got this thing and if you don't give up all of your rights right now, you're all going to die. Then finally. We even saw conservatives say, OK, you know what, we got to do something here, we have to let them shut down. But here's the thing about the left. You give them that rope, they will hang you with it, you know, and and that was my fear, no matter even if this was 100 percent true.
And now, of course, they're saying, we got this right, we got this right, we got this wrong. But let's say everything about the coronaviruses true. Let's say it was 10 times more deadly than the flu. Let's say it could jump six feet. It could be transmitted jocularly.
Let's say even if you were asymptomatic, it could jump from you and and it was going to kill off grandmas and grandpas all over America.
Does that mean that it's proper for the government to come in and to step up and decide how you live? Right. Do I not have a right to get the coronavirus if I decide that I want to take a chance and go to work? Do I not have a right to go out and say, you know what, I know it's real and I could probably get it? And then do people not then have a right to say, you know what, she can go outside, but I'm going to stay inside because I think she's absolutely crazy and I'm not going to get this?
How do you how do we determine where do we draw the line here?
In the past, there has never been any reason to suspend constitutional liberties other than in wartime. So in wartime, for example, the government can do things to you that infringe on your liberty, for example, to draft you, to make you go fight even if you don't want to fight, because this is war.
In previous pandemics, we have not had a wartime situation. The government has not done the things had tried to do this time.
And so I think what's very pernicious is that our civil liberties are actually not up for democratic referendum. It doesn't matter if 99 percent of people say, Dinesh, you can say that I have a right to say it doesn't matter of 99 percent of people say, hey, Dinesh, you can't practice your faith or your conscience in this way.
I have a right to do it. Why? Because I never ceded that write to the government in the first place. I never gave it up. This was a limited social compact to do certain things and receive certain protections in return. And by the way, with all this defund the police nonsense. The truth of it is if they truly defund the police, the social compact is ended because even for Hobbs, who favored a strong state, Hobs basically said the reason we get into a state, the reason that we we give to the government this power is because the government promises to protect us.
That is its first duty before it does anything else. And if it ever stops doing that, all bets are off. We owe the government no allegiance. We owe the government no taxes. We are no longer we are basically back in the state of nature, as Hobbs put it, and we fend for ourselves. If the government can't protect us, it's no good. Right. And Democrats, remarkably, have raised, at least in theory, this idea.
We want a government that will not protect its own citizens.
Right. And in the same regard, they want a government that's also going to pay for citizens to not work and to do nothing. So it's tremendous. They want to grow government, but they want to make sure that you don't have these institutions that's going to protect the citizens. It's also confusing.
And you have to ask the question, what is the left after? What are they after? You know, you've got on the one hand, they say they spent years. We need to make sure that nobody in America has a gun. We want to unarm the citizens because if you're an emergency, you can call 911 one.
Now, we're suddenly arrived at we want to defund the police. And by the way, they're carrying signs where I live. I'd say abolish the police. Right.
So which is it? You know, do you do you want us to be able to call 911? There's no emergency or do you want to abolish the police?
Why does it seem like we're going all over the place and there's really no structure in terms of what they're actually after.
So I'd like to take a stab at saying what they want, what I think what I think they're going for. A lot of conservatives have said over the years that socialism will never work because it's against human nature. But I think that the new socialism that they're pushing now is not against human nature. It actually appeals to a very low, unappealing side of human nature. So I the coronavirus, for example, a lot of people have been sitting on their couch and the left is saying to those people, hey, isn't that kind of nice?
I mean, do you really want to have to start dressing up again and shaving and going into work and punching a clock and listening to your boss rave on and on?
Would it be cool if we gave you two thousand dollars a month and you just hang out on your couch for about Julie? There's a little part of everybody that goes, hmmm, why not?
You know, really now the leading socialists, the people who are pushing the system are extremely cunning and ambitious. They are not sitting on that couch. In fact, they have indefatigable energy.
The problem is that they don't have any of the skills that are good in entrepreneurial society. Take people like Bernie Sanders, Obama, Hillary.
It's not that they're they are industrious. It's just that if you ask them to make an iPhone, they would know how to do it. If you asked them to figure out Amazon Prime, they would be clueless. They're useless figures in an entrepreneurial society, but they recognize it in a socialist society. They would be the ones in charge. They'd be driving the carriage.
So when it was. Warren says something like, you know, I want to turn over health care to the people, that's democratic socialism, the people will be in charge of health care.
I say to myself, well, I'm part of the people. What say do I have in any public institution, the post office? Do I have any say in the way the post office is run or operated? No. Do you have any say in the way the DMV operates? No. As the ordinary British guy have any say in the way the British National Health Service works? No.
So when they say the people who do they mean they mean Elizabeth Warren, she is going to run the health. She's going to tell you, sorry, Candice, you have this condition, but you're going to have to just wait.
So ultimately, they've realised that socialism can work for them, not just in power, but also in money. I mean, look at the American Socialists or the people leaning in that direction.
They have all cashed in big time in politics.
The Clintons went from zero to two hundred million, the Bidens from zero to one hundred million. Al Gore is worth one hundred million dollars. The Obamas are worth over fifty million dollars.
Think about that. How do you make that kind of dough on a government salary?
By the way, there's no politician in Scandinavia who has ever done that. Right. But in Venezuela, if you look at the say, the Chavez family, the Maduro family, the Chavez family, a billionaire. So the richest family in Venezuela. So in Venezuela, as in America, socialism is big business.
And, you know, I think another element of this is that people don't understand anything about their government and we really are flying blind in why? I think, you know, the first way that we defeat this is that we have to do something about the education system. I mean, they're pulling out classes in civics. You can't learn about Western civilization, right? That's racist. You're not learning about civics. All you're learning about is exactly what you're talking about.
Men, why men are bad if you're a woman, why white people are bad if you're a black person or a white person. They now have classes where white people have to learn about their white guilt. And what we've really done is we've placed a solid education system with psychological conditioning. White kids come out of school, they hate the West. They think there's something fundamentally wrong and backwards about capitalism, about Western society.
Yet if you speak to those people that speak so negatively about America, they'd never want to go live anywhere in the East.
Why do you want to live in the West? You know, why would you prefer your kids grew up here as opposed to growing up somewhere like Russia? And and this is sort of the problem that we have is that we're fundamentally teaching anti-Americanism. And I feel badly when I see these kids like these, you know, fifteen year old antifa thugs. Right. Running around rioting because they really know nothing.
They know nothing.
Academia is the theory and antifa is the practice. So if you think about it, what the left has done here with the George Floyd killing is they've taken the episode.
Now, when that episode first occurred, everybody said, that's bad, that's wrong.
And there was an opportunity to have a moment of national unity, which is we all agree on something and we can proceed to look at what happened and how to fix it.
But the left realized, no, no, no, that's not what we want. We actually want an opportunity for racial division. So what we have to do is we take the George Floyd episode and attach it to a larger narrative. Now, the larger narrative is unhooked from George Floyd. It's things like from the George Floyd episode. Do you think, OK, if we see a bad cop, the solution to a bad cop is obviously to have a good cop.
So let's try to get more good cops. But that's not the left's approach. The left's approach is all cops are like that.
Cops are in chronically racist, even black ops, because as you remember, in the Floyd case, there was a black op, there was a an Asian cop. They're all racist.
And why are they racist? Because they're part of a racist system. So America's racist. And not only is it racist now, but it's been racist not only since 1776, but since sixty nineteen. This is The New York Times is infamous sixteen nineteen project.
So the demonization of America narrative is now put on top of the George Floyd killing. And the basic move is if you deny the narrative, you don't care about George Floyd.
So this is what intimidates people on our side and it intimidates pastors. It intimidates Republican politicians. They feel they have to genuflect before this narrative or else they'll be accused of being racist.
Right now, this narrative has been concocted and manufactured by progressives over the past century, and they have been in the past. They had to debate it. Now they don't debate it. They just drummed into young people. And these young people don't know the counter narrative. Now, our side is actually pretty good at putting the the counter fact, saying things like, well, the majority of people killed by cops are actually white.
But but a fact doesn't dispute a narrative because the narrative is actually an interpretation of a wide body of facts. And it's really important for our side to generate counter narratives that tell the other story of America that young people are not being subjected to. This is where our universities have completely broken down, because if you really believe the narrative, let's say you really believe this country is racist to its core.
It's built on a. Its wealth has been generated by oppression, then throwing a Molotov cocktail into a police precinct is in fact logical because you're going to do whatever you can by any means necessary to take down this monster.
You know, that's actually very interesting. And I want to talk about that. And I just want to bring up people that are watching this. If you don't recall this incident, a Molotov cocktail was thrown into a police car in New York City and the two people were actually arrested. That threw the Molotov cocktail. And both of them were recent graduates of Yale and Princeton University, NYU Law, Yale and Princeton University and their undergrad. And I mean, these were remarkable students.
Immigrants was one was Asian and one was. Yeah. Was Asian. Indian, which and then I just couldn't wrap my head around this.
They worked at a top tier law school, a top tier law firm.
And I could not wrap my head around what would possess these people coming to this to this land doing phenomenally. You know, their their peers were shocked that they were caught and throwing this this into a police and ruining their entire lives there.
Now they're going to have to face up for attempted murder.
So this is the thing that ironically, if those same people had gone to a community college or a working class university, they would not have felt that way. So it's not paradoxical or strange that they got this ideology in the Ivy League or in the top ranks because the top ranked universities are the most radical. That's where this ideology is the least contested. So it's actually, in a way, predictable and normal that we have trained many of our best students to be the most subversive, the the most vehement in rejecting American principles.
Now, for me, as an immigrant, having come to America the age of 17, when I got to college, it was very strange to me that people saw American history in terms of sort of three brief episodes. There was a founding which is seen as sort of a racist act. Then there was a civil war, which is seen as a very partial and imperfect attempt to correct the founding. And then we jump forward to the civil rights movement.
And that's pretty much American history. That's it. And I said to myself, this is actually not what interests me at all, because you're talking about the extension of American prosperity and American rights to previously excluded groups.
But I'm interested in how that prosperity and those rights came about in the first place.
In other words, how does a country go from being a backward country, a third world country, America in about 1810 to then becoming the richest country in the world in about 50 years?
How is it the case that 60 percent of all the important inventions in the world have occurred in this country and no other? It almost makes other countries seem stupid. So how did America become responsible not just for this or that invention, but the invention of invention?
Who did those things?
And I realized that even even in the 80s, academia was dead silent on this question.
And only later I realized that progressives have done a lot to cover up this question, because in order to focus on the distribution problem, they have to hide how the wealth is created in the first place.
And they also have to hide their own history. And I'm glad you brought up the fact that these are, you know, all of these bad ideas. They come from these top tier universities. Every bad idea, postmodernism came through Yale University, the idea of eugenics ism, Yale University, again, Madison Grant, who wrote The Passing of the Great Race, which was wildly popular during the progressive era. He was a Yale University graduate. Eugenics, that was that was, you know, Harvard.
People thought that there was something fundamentally wrong with the immigrants that were coming from Eastern Eastern Europe. And these universities never, ever, ever have to fess up for what they've done. They just continue to pollute and put out bad ideas and there's never any accounting. And right now, that that idea that they are obsessed with, that they are perpetuating right now beyond the racial narrative, beyond the general education narrative is socialism.
I wish we had more time. I think every single person needs to go out and get this book. The United States of Socialism by Dinesh D'Souza. You need to understand everything about socialism so that you can actually teach people who know nothing and think that they're fighting for something that's going to be good to as wrap up every episode by allowing you to leave a two minute face message with the world. So you're going to say what you hope falls on their ears.
Tell them maybe something about your book. There's so much in that we didn't get into. Are you ready?
Yes, I'm ready on your mark. Get set, world. I give you Mr. Dinesh D'Souza.
So the left will defend socialism today by saying it's democratic socialism. They say that they're extending the same democracy that we have in the political sphere into the economic sphere. And the point I want to make is that capitalism or free markets are actually far more democratic than socialism, even democratic socialism.
Now, why is that? Well, in politics, we vote every. Two years, maybe every four years, sometimes if it's not raining, so it's a very indirect form of democracy and we don't decide things for ourselves, we vote for other people, representative. They decide for us. Now, you are a citizen and you vote, but you're also a consumer. But as a consumer, you vote in the market every day. You vote constantly, regularly.
And while it costs you nothing to vote in when you cast a ballot, you're voting with your hard earned dollars in the market. And the point I want to make is in that sense, free markets are far more accountable to popular will, popular consent than anything in the political system. So we don't need to extend democracy from the political to the economic sphere. Why? Because we already have it. Capitalism is a form of social justice. Too often we defend capitalism by pointing merely to its efficiency.
But we need also to defend its morality.
That's that's the key argument I make in the United States of socialism.
And also, Kandis, we have a movie coming later called Trump Card that takes this sort of backbone of the book, converts it into an emotional and inspiring narrative that's coming later.
All right. Well, make sure you guys go get the United States of socialism. Nash, thank you so much for coming on the show. I wish we had more time. My pleasure.
Thank you. That's a wrap. Thank you guys for watching the latest episode of the Kandace own show, I hope you guys enjoyed the conversation as much as I did. As many of you guys already know. Prager U. Is a five on one C3 nonprofit organization, which means we need your help to keep all of our content free to the public. Please consider making a tax deductible donation today. I would really appreciate your support.