The Goal of Socialists Is Socialism — Not Prosperity

The rising influence of socialist ideology in U.S. politics represents a slow-moving risk to equity markets, one that challenges the legal and institutional foundations of publicly traded companies like Apple. In a recent analysis, Bill Anderson, a professor of economics at Frostburg State University, argues that the objective of socialism is not economic prosperity but the establishment of socialism itself. He points to a quote from Cea Weaver, a housing adviser to New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who said the goal is to “impoverish the white middle class.”

Anderson draws on the work of economist Bruce Yandle, who spent time at the Council on Wage and Price Stability and concluded that regulators act in their own self-interest, not in the public interest. “Instead of assuming that regulators really intended to minimize costs but somehow proceeded to make crazy mistakes, I began to assume that they were not trying to minimize costs at all – at least not the costs I had been concerned with,” Yandle wrote. Anderson applies this logic to socialism: the system exists to preserve itself, not to improve living standards.

The exposure for Apple (AAPL) is not immediate but structural. Socialist policies – price controls, wealth taxes, direct state control of production – would undermine the property rights and entrepreneurial incentives that drive the company’s valuation. Anderson cites the meltdown in Venezuela, where price controls and seizures destroyed businesses despite the government’s stated aim of helping the poor. “The one thing the author does not suggest is the government backing off its policies and its socialist ideology,” Anderson writes. “To do so, obviously, would mean that socialism had failed and no socialist is going to ever embrace the idea that socialism could fail.”

The timeline for this risk is uncertain but tied to electoral cycles. The 2024 campaign saw democratic socialist candidates gain traction in several races. Anderson notes that socialists do not abandon their faith even when the evidence is overwhelming. He references Robert Heilbroner’s 1989 New Yorker article, “The Triumph of Capitalism,” in which the Marxist economist admitted that capitalism organizes material affairs more satisfactorily than socialism, yet Heilbroner did not embrace free markets. Instead, he called for a new strategy to achieve socialism through environmentalism. “Even after seeing the socialist system that economists like he, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Paul Samuelson praised for a generation melt down right in front of him, Heilbroner could not bring himself to admit that maybe socialists needed to turn in their membership cards and promote capitalism,” Anderson writes.

What would reduce the risk for Apple and other stock market analysis participants? A clear electoral rejection of socialist candidates and a reaffirmation of market-based policies. The opposite would make the risk worse: further gains by the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic Party, especially in positions that control regulatory and fiscal policy. Anderson’s core argument is that the end of socialism is socialism, not prosperity. “Once socialism is established, as it was in Venezuela or in the former USSR or Cuba, the social ideal had been met no matter what the actual outcome might be,” he writes.

For investors, the risk is real but not imminent. The U.S. remains a capitalist economy with strong property rights. But the ideological drift that Anderson describes – a movement that views inequality as a systemic failure demanding state control – could, over a decade or more, alter the legal environment in which companies like Apple operate. The quote from Cea Weaver about impoverishing the white middle class suggests that the goal is not to lift all boats but to sink some. Anderson’s essay is a reminder that the debate over socialism is not about economics; it is about power.