Forum

When the government becomes master, then you become its slave, but this November the Democrats want the black community to return to slavery.

Think I’m kidding? Keep reading! When a congressional nominee says she is “very excited” to “build black socialism,” the phrasing is meant to sound like emancipation. It is the opposite. It is a proposal to make the state the principal owner of work, housing, medicine, and opportunity—and therefore the master of the people who depend on those things.

Darializa Avila Chevalier, the Democrat Socialists of America-backed candidate who unseated a five-term incumbent in New York’s 13th District, recently explained her project this way: she and her team were “very intentional” not to talk about socialism in the abstract, but about “the legacy of socialism in our district… a legacy of black socialism, Latino socialism, that focused on racial justice as economic justice.” The identity wrapper is new. The mechanism is not.

The planner, the ministry, the caucus, or the “people’s” committee decides what is produced, who receives it, and on what terms. The citizen who once sold labor, rented rooms, started a shop, or refused a bad bargain becomes a socialist enabler.

Herbert Spencer saw the endpoint clearly: “If a person must labor for the community and take only what the community awards, he is a slave to the society. The master need not wear a whip. A ration book and a work assignment will do.”

History is not subtle on this point. Where governments seized the commanding heights—Soviet industry, Maoist communes, Cuban nationalization, Venezuelan expropriation—the result was not racial or class brotherhood. It was scarcity administered by officials, plus punishment for those who tried to exit the plan.

• Work ceased to be a contract between free parties and became a duty to the collective.
• Speech that contradicted the plan became sabotage.
• Poverty was not an accident of bad managers; it was the price of replacing prices and property with political will.

Racializing the program does not dissolve the hierarchy.

A “black socialism” still requires a class of administrators who decide which industries live, which neighborhoods get capital, which grievances are official, and which workers are entitled to what. Those administrators become the new masters. The people they claim to free become clients whose bread depends on favor rather than output, savings, or voluntary association. Group slogans do not repeal the knowledge problem: no committee can know what millions of separate lives know about their own needs.

The sales pitch is always the same. Free goods first; the surrender of independence later, if it is mentioned at all. Speaker Mike Johnson recently put the contrast in plain terms: “Socialism is advertised as a gift, while the cost—loss of freedom—is left off the receipt.” That is why the language of excitement matters. Excitement is for the promise. Servitude arrives with the implementation.

Chattel slavery was the legal ownership of persons. Political slavery is the practical ownership of their choices. Both rest on the claim that some authority, not the individual, is the rightful master of a life.

“Building socialism—black, Latino, or any other brand—does not abolish mastery. It nationalizes it; in the end, this is nothing more than the forceful redistribution of poverty and nothing less!” Steve Eichler – Founder of the Patriot Command Center

A free people remain free only while they own their labor and can walk away from the would-be master. Once the government is the landlord, the employer, and the dispenser of justice, walking away is no longer an option. That is not a new society. It is an old condition with a new flag.

Pray for our friends in the black community so that they remain free.