why young people react favorably to the word socialism

A recent Pew survey asked people to react to the words “socialism” and “capitalism.” It reveals some quirks, like the 12% of Tea Party supporters who favor socialism–what’s up with them? (See the table below.) But I’m especially interested in the age differences, brought to my attention by Iris Deroeux.

Among 18-29s, 49% react favorably to “socialism,” compared to 31% of the whole adult population and just 13% in the 65+ age range. Fewer young people (46%) react favorably to “capitalism.” The latter is not a wildly popular term in the whole sample, but around half the individuals in each age group like it.

One could explain young people’s favorable response to “socialism” in several ways. Their experience with actual capitalism has been limited to the past decade, which was a bad one. Arguably, they don’t have as much information/understanding of socialism as older people do–although I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion without data. (I would rather suspect that hardly anyone knows what it is.)

But here’s my actual guess: young people have heard “socialist” thrown as an epithet at Barack Obama. The President remains popular among them, and to the extent that he has lost popularity, a major reason is his perceived unwillingness to confront his opponents: the very people who label him a socialist. Those opponents (conservative or “movement” Republicans) have very weak youth following. So every time they call the President a socialist, the reputation of socialism rises.

What should “socialism” mean, anyway? I would say: Workers’ or popular control of the means of production. In a socialist society, either the workers own and manage the factories and farms by committee, or the government (seen as responsive to the whole population) owns and manages all the productive assets. Genuine popular control may be impossible because of Michel’s Iron Law of Oligarchy–which asserts that a small group will inevitably seize assets in their own interest–or it may be undesirable, but it is clear enough as an ideal.

By this definition, the United States has never been socialist, but the elements of our economy that could be described as socialist are relatively old and have shrunk. I am thinking of the Postal Service, public schools and universities, the Forest Service, prisons, and scattered agencies like the Tennessee Valley Authority and NASA. All could be described as providing goods or services by directly employing workers in the state sector. But all have lost their monopolies in an age of UPS and FexEx, the University of Phoenix, school vouchers, SpaceX, and for-profit prisons. The US has never nationalized companies, and worker-owned enterprises have always been small.

Another definition holds that a government is socialist if it taxes and spends in order to distribute goods or social outcomes more equally. I would reject that definition because it conceals an important difference between states that produce things and states that buy things from private vendors. Our governments (at all levels) tax and spend, but to a large extent, they spend tax dollars on capitalist goods and services. Social Security checks go to individuals who buy what they need on the market. Medicare and Medicaid checks go to private hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and physicians’ practices. The Department of Defense buys aircraft carriers from Northrop Grumman et al. I see that as regulated or subsidized capitalism, not socialism. It is the central direction of the Obama administration, which has tried to stimulate capitalist enterprise and subsidize and regulate private medical insurance. When they’ve ended up owning an enterprise, they’ve tried to get rid of it as fast as possible: what I’ve called “hot potato” socialism.

It would be analytically less clear, but not wrong, to assert that any government that taxes and spends is socialist. In that case, however, Mitt Romney is only a few percent less socialist than Barack Obama is, and FDR was only a bit more socialist than Herbert Hoover was. Socialism can’t be a deep political divide if all governments have taxed and spent since the 1700s. (We just haggle over the quantity.)

That’s why I think modern libertarianism often adds two ingredients: 1) taxing and spending should be local or state prerogatives, and 2) any federal spending should be limited to the express purposes listed in Article I of the Constitution. There are arguments for these views, but it’s important to notice that they are but weakly tied to the basic arguments against socialism. If socialism is taxing and spending, then any American city would be a socialist republic even if the federal government got completely out of the business of education, welfare, health, and environmental protection.

To return to the survey results: I doubt very many Americans have a sharp definition of socialism, and I suspect that our implicit definitions vary quite widely (from any degree of government-funded welfare to a Leninist state monopoly of production). “Capitalism” seems surprisingly unpopular to me, and “socialism” polls better than I would have expected. I would guess that reflects a backlash against the way the term is being used to marginalize President Obama, rather than an actual endorsement of socialist principles–but who knows?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on by .

About Peter

Associate Dean for Research and the Lincoln Filene Professor of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Tufts University's Tisch College of Civic Life. Concerned about civic education, civic engagement, and democratic reform in the United States and elsewhere.

One thought on “why young people react favorably to the word socialism

  1. Pingback: Links for January 27, 2012 | KevinBondelli.com: Youth Vote, Technology, Politics

Comments are closed.