Younger generations in the West today often express admiration for socialism. Whether on social media, in college classrooms, or in viral memes, there's a common theme: capitalism is seen as exploitative, inequality is portrayed as inherent rather than contingent, and socialism is depicted as the moral alternative — one that promises fairness, security, and community. But this romanticism is based on illusion, not history, and the real danger comes when those youthful fantasies harden into enduring policy prescriptions.
At first glance, the appeal of socialism among young people is understandable. University can feel like a pressure cooker of student debt, uncertain job prospects, and rising living costs. Compare that to the polished rhetoric of socialism — free education, universal health care, a more cooperative economy — and it's no wonder idealistic young people are drawn to its promises. Who wouldn't want a system that claims to eliminate hardship and ensure dignity for all?
The problem is twofold. First, these visions of socialism are almost always abstract and theoretical. They're built from slogans and emotions, not from honest examination of real-world experience. Second, the optimism that makes socialism seem alluring at 20 becomes dangerous at 40 when it influences real public policy that affects real lives. When admiration for socialism evolves into advocacy for policies that expand government control, punish success, or redistribute wealth without regard to consequence, the result is not fairness — it is stagnation, dependency, and erosion of individual freedom.
Socialism's romantic image is often built by pointing at the real flaws of capitalism: inequality, corporate excess, financial insecurity. But critics of capitalism on the Left often exaggerate, misattribute, or ignore the root causes of these problems. Capitalism — the economic system rooted in private property, voluntary exchange, and reward for productive contributions — has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in history. It has enabled innovation, global trade, and unprecedented material abundance. It is not perfect, but its imperfections are not evidence of moral failure; they are challenges to be addressed within a system of freedom, not reasons to abandon it.
Contrast this with the historical record of socialism. Whether in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, or Venezuela, socialist governance has repeatedly produced shortages, repression, economic collapse, and widespread loss of liberty. These are not isolated failures; they are systemic consequences of concentrating economic decision-making in government hands rather than distributing it among individuals and markets. To romanticise socialism while ignoring this history is not just naïve — it is intellectually dishonest.
Yet too often, that is precisely what happens. Socialism is presented as a kind of moral superior — caring, compassionate, and fair — while capitalism is reduced to greedy corporations and heartless markets. But compassion in policy cannot be measured by intent alone; it must be judged by outcomes. A system that insists on equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity inevitably suppresses the very engines of wealth creation and mobility that make opportunity possible.
The greater danger occurs when this romanticism persists beyond youth. When those who admired socialism in their twenties enter positions of influence, they begin to shape public policy. What started as idealism becomes regulation, expanded bureaucracy, and increased government spending. Students who once chanted for free college and universal income grow up to become the policymakers who implement programs that balloon deficits, distort markets, and create dependencies that are hard to reverse.
The result is predictable. Instead of flourishing economies that generate growth and opportunity, we get rigid systems that reward lobbying over productivity. Instead of innovation, we get stagnation. Instead of empowerment, we get entitlement. Instead of freedom, we get centralisation.
That is why a conservative critique of socialism is not simply an appeal to tradition or fear of change. It is a warning grounded in historical evidence, economic logic, and respect for human freedom. Young people are right to demand a better society — one that reduces poverty, increases opportunity, and fosters community. But socialism is not the pathway to that vision. True reform comes from empowering individuals, encouraging enterprise, and maintaining a framework of rights and responsibilities that protects both liberty and prosperity.
Romanticising socialism may feel good in a classroom or online debate, but when translated into policy it often produces outcomes the idealists themselves would never choose if they fully understood the consequences. Recognising the difference between vision and reality is essential if the West is to avoid the economic and moral failures that have plagued societies that abandoned freedom in pursuit of an unattainable perfect society.
In the end, socialism's allure among the young is not a mystery. What should trouble us is the persistence of that allure into adulthood, when it becomes less about critique and more about prescription. A society that forgets the lessons of history, or ignores the consequences of its policies, is a society that will repeat its mistakes. Young people should be encouraged to question and to seek justice — but they should also be encouraged to learn from history, to value freedom, and to recognise that wealth and opportunity are created, not confiscated. Otherwise, they are slaves themselves to the globalist forces of the New World Order.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/why-so-many-americans-romanticize-socialism-and-why-theyre-wrong