"Socialism is simply Communism for people without the testosterone to man the barricades"

Gary North’s statement, “Socialism is simply Communism for people without the testosterone to man the barricades,” is a provocative characterization that seeks to draw a sharp distinction between the perceived vigor of revolutionary Communism and the allegedly milder, perhaps more passive, nature of Socialism. North draws on gendered metaphors, using “testosterone” as a stand-in for aggression, courage, or the willingness to participate in direct, sometimes violent action for a cause. In his formulation, Communism is presented as the ideology of those prepared to risk everything, for example, by “manning the barricades” in outright rebellion, whereas Socialism, in contrast, becomes a diluted, less committed version of the same impulse, lacking in masculine “force” or revolutionary fervor.

Implicit in this observation is a critique of Socialism as half-hearted or compromised, appealing to those who may share some ideological goals with Communists, such as economic equality or collective ownership, but are unwilling or unable to engage in the kind of extreme, confrontational tactics associated with actual Communist revolutions. The remark thus stigmatizes Socialism as the ideology of those who enjoy the rhetoric or aims of radical change but fall short of enacting it with the same level of commitment or personal risk.

There is also an embedded suggestion that Socialism is appealing because it does not demand the same fortitude or threat to personal safety, allowing adherents to agitate for significant societal reform without the chaos or danger of revolution. This framework renders Socialism, in North’s terms, less authentic or resolute than Communism, assigning it a place as a ‘softer’ cousin, motivated by similar desires, but practiced by those unwilling to fight in the streets. Through this deliberately provocative contrast, North underscores a hierarchy in the spectrum of left-wing ideology, privileging action and zeal as virtues, and implicitly casting Socialism as a kind of ideological halfway house.