01 Sep 2026 Evie Harris: If Socialism Works, Why Are So Many Communities Still Struggling?

“After decades of government intervention in many predominantly black communities, why should we assume that giving government even more control will produce better results?” asks Project 21 Ambassador Evie “Shelly E” Harris about the rise of socialism in America.

“If the objective is ultimately economic independence, why are some communities still experiencing poverty at two or three times the national rate after six decades of increasingly expansive government intervention?”

Read her entire commentary below.

---

Why should black Americans be alarmed by the rise of socialism—specifically by Zohran Mamdani’s proposal for city-owned grocery stores?

The answer begins with a simple question:

After decades of government intervention in many predominantly black communities, why should we assume that giving government even more control will produce better results?

Socialism is often packaged as a panacea, particularly for those at the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. The promise is appealing: Government will provide the necessities of life and ensure that no one is left behind.

But there are two important questions that are too often overlooked: What does that security cost, and does it ultimately produce independence?

We have all heard the cliché, “nothing is free.” Government benefits and interventions are no exception. The real question is whether government assistance provides a temporary bridge to self-sufficiency—or becomes a permanent, but ultimately false, substitute for economic independence.

This question deserves particular attention in many predominantly black communities, but it is certainly applicable to all Americans, regardless of political party, affiliation or persuasion.

Black Americans are among the hardest-working people in this country. Yet many predominantly black communities continue to struggle with concentrated poverty, crime, underperforming schools, low homeownership and the loss of businesses and residents.

At the same time, black voters remain overwhelmingly aligned with leftist politics. That political loyalty raises legitimate questions: What economic returns are these communities receiving for the political power they have consistently invested in one party? What have decades of political loyalty produced in terms of economic independence?

Consider Baltimore and Detroit.

In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared an “unconditional war on poverty.” The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 established programs including Job Corps and Community Action, while Head Start followed in 1965. Medicaid and other major components of the Great Society’s expansion of federal assistance also followed during this period.

At the beginning of the War on Poverty, the national poverty rate was 19.0%. By 2024, it was 12.5% using the ACS 5-year measure. The decline is real and should be acknowledged. In fact, poverty fell dramatically during the 1960s, reaching approximately 12.1% by 1969.

But what happened in many of the communities that were supposed to benefit most from these efforts?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2024 American Community Survey, Baltimore City’s median household income was $62,177, compared with approximately $80,734 nationally. Detroit’s median household income was $39,938. Baltimore’s poverty rate was approximately 19.7%, while Detroit’s was approximately 32.7%, compared with approximately 12.5% nationally, using the comparable ACS 5-year measure.

Baltimore’s poverty rate is therefore roughly 1.6 times the national rate, while Detroit’s is roughly 2.6 times the national rate.

The Census Bureau also reports that Baltimore is approximately 59.2% black, with an owner-occupied housing rate of 47.5%. Detroit is approximately 75.3% black, with an owner-occupied housing rate of 50.3%.

The national picture is important as well. The Census Bureau’s Housing Vacancy Survey reported a 46.4% homeownership rate for black households in the fourth quarter of 2024, compared with 65.7% for all U.S. households.

Business ownership tells another part of the story. According to the Census Bureau’s latest business-owner data, black Americans owned approximately 201,000 employer businesses in 2023, representing 3.4% of all U.S. employer businesses. Black Americans also owned approximately 4.4 million non-employer businesses, representing 14.4% of non-employer businesses.

These figures matter because economic independence is ultimately about more than the ability to consume. It is about the ability to own.

If the objective is ultimately economic independence, why are some communities still experiencing poverty at two or three times the national rate after six decades of increasingly expansive government intervention?

That question does not prove that government programs caused these conditions. Nor would it be intellectually honest to attribute the economic decline of these cities to a single political party or policy. Deindustrialization, suburbanization, crime, housing policy, family structure, education, taxation, business regulation and numerous other factors have all played roles.

But neither should we pretend that political accountability is irrelevant.

For more than half a century, government has devoted enormous resources to combating poverty and improving disadvantaged communities. And for generations, black voters have provided one of the left’s most reliable voting blocs. So, what has been the return?

As it relates specifically to black Americans and predominantly black communities, we need to ask some serious questions:

Are communities safer?

Are schools better?

Are more families homeowners?

Are more black-owned businesses being created and sustained?

Are household incomes rising?

Are fewer people dependent on government?

Are children entering adulthood with greater economic opportunities than their parents had?

These are not Republican questions or Democratic questions. They are results questions. They are questions for Americans of all ethnicities, but they deserve particularly serious consideration in communities that have experienced persistent poverty despite decades of government intervention.

This is where Mamdani’s grocery-store proposal deserves scrutiny. The issue isn’t whether affordable groceries are desirable. Of course they are. The issue is whether government ownership and public subsidies are the best mechanisms for producing them.

Mamdani’s proposal calls for five city-owned grocery stores intended to offer lower-cost groceries. Under the current proposal, the city would provide the storefronts and subsidize costs such as rent and taxes, while private operators would manage the stores.

A publicly supported grocery store doesn’t eliminate the cost of food. It shifts some of the costs and risks from private investors to taxpayers.

Government officials would ultimately be involved in decisions normally made by competing businesses: where stores should be located, what products should be offered, how prices should be structured, how subsidies are allocated and how losses are handled.

And if the government-supported store succeeds, the obvious question is: Why couldn’t the private sector do the same thing under the same conditions?

If the store fails, taxpayers—not private investors—bear the financial consequences.

There is another concern that deserves consideration.

Government-supported grocery stores could compete with the very entrepreneurs we should want to encourage: black entrepreneurs who want to own grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants, construction companies, professional practices and other businesses in their own communities.

Economic independence means more than having government provide affordable goods. It means owning the store. It means owning the building. It means owning the home. It means starting the business. It means earning enough income that government assistance becomes unnecessary.

That distinction is especially important when discussing economic mobility. Long-term economic security depends not only on income, but also on ownership, investment and the accumulation of assets.

So, should black Americans be alarmed by socialism?

Not because every government program is inherently evil. Not because every progressive proposal is socialism. And not because government has no legitimate role in addressing genuine problems.

Black Americans—and Americans in general—should be skeptical of socialism because transferring more economic power from individuals, families and private businesses to government does not automatically produce economic independence.

The more important question is whether a policy expands the ability of ordinary people to own, earn, invest and compete—or incentivizes them to be dependent upon government to provide what they need.

Black Americans have spent generations fighting for political power. We should ask whether that political power is being converted into economic power. Because voting for politicians is political power. Owning the home, the business and the means to provide for one’s family is economic power—and economic independence.

If government is becoming increasingly responsible for providing the necessities of life, we should ask a very basic question: Are we building citizens who need government less—or citizens who need government more? That is the question black Americans, and all Americans, should be asking before embracing socialism.

Black Americans—all Americans—deserve policies that produce measurable improvements in their lives.

Political loyalty should never be the objective. Economic independence should be.

 

Project 21 Ambassador Evie Harris, better known by her media moniker “Shelly E,” is a commentator, political activist and media host based out of Maryland.