Many good points, but hasn't polling shown young men strongly shifting right? Also if this is about fairness, why are less affluent black and hispanic voters immune to socialism's charms?
I also disagree with the premise that socialism's winning message is rooted "fairness". Capitalism's winning message is about fairness (idealistically: reward proportional to value generation). Socialism's winning message is the "free stuff" you mentioned - the rich are simply hoarding all the cash and if they just shared it we would all live like them.
I simply have yet to be convinced by the many pieces like this that this phenomenon (here in America) is anything other than the participation trophy set failing to come to grasps with the fact that the reasons things aren't working for them in [major city] is that they are not that special. The white guilt relief is an added bonus.
I attribute it to the decline in the Puritan culture and traditions of hard work as a path to a better future. Rise of easy money through hustling, being an influencer etc. devalued the meaning of work and changed the perception that money must be earned. And, of course, the more handouts are given by the government, the more people take it for granted.
Absolutely, All traits of the "participation trophy set". No better way to devalue the meaning of work in a child than to never make them work hard for anything.
People who promote socialism mostly fall into the categories of ignorant or stupid. The ignorant comprise those unaware of socialism's record for impoverishing societies and haven't read authors like F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, or Thomas Sowell. Then there are those who lack the intellectual capacity to understand the theoretical and experienced cases.
I think another factor is a misunderstanding of what capitalism, or at least free markets, are. Listen to people talk about our "free market health care system" and you can see. It's been distorted by government systems, massive regulation and tax-induced third-party payments. A market can't exist where price signals aren't allowed, and the world is full of economic systems that are not socialist but are distorted so much by regulation that they can't really be called free markets. And yet, I bet all the socialism fans at issue here assume that anything less than socialism is unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism.
I suppose in some ways I'm making the same argument as the Abundance guys, but they try to minimize the scope of it, lest the regulatory state lose its overall power.
Coleman Hughes' argument suffers from the same elite myopia he tries to critique. The idea that socialism is making a comeback among "the young" assumes far too much about the average young American. Most young people who aren’t on a college track—let alone immersed in the kinds of intellectual environments Hughes inhabits—neither understand nor care about socialism as a doctrine. What he’s really describing is a subset of the professional-managerial class and the activist left.
More importantly, Hughes attributes socialism’s appeal to lofty emotional instincts—fairness, equality, even something akin to religious longing. But this glosses over something far more grounded: resentment. Much of what parades as socialist thought today is better understood as grievance politics aimed at punishing those who are better off. It’s less about justice than revenge, and less about policy than identity.
Hughes also recycles the idea that the core socialist message is “take from the rich and give to the poor”—but that’s not uniquely socialist. That’s a Christian ethic, a populist slogan, and a welfare-state talking point, none of which require socialism. True socialism involves public or collective ownership of the means of production. By that standard, it’s not enduring—it has failed every time it has tried to scale beyond the commune or the kibbutz. Where is the well-functioning socialist state today?
Finally, Hughes’ preferred alternative—the so-called “abundance agenda”—rings hollow. If it amounts to deregulation in the name of growth, it risks becoming little more than a permission slip for capital to offload its externalities onto the public. If unchecked, it could erode the very quality of life it claims to deliver and push even more voters toward economic populism, if not outright socialism.
In short, Hughes is engaging with the rhetoric of socialism, not its political or economic reality. He’s diagnosing the symptoms, but misreading the underlying pathology.
RULE #1 Start with 2 basic premises, INCENTIVES & RISK. From the first humanoids moving out of tribe for better hunting/gathering to deciding to place seeds in the ground to grow food, harvest it, store it & remain in place forming communities, then cities, then states, then nations. There have always been winners & losers as human nature & nature itself is UNFAIR. Every attempt to engineer fairness has been a failure. Improvements in our economic & social attitudes are based on & succeed by following Rule #1 above. Add time & pressure and you have progress. Socialism/Communism fails as negates Rule #1
Karl Marx didn't originally start out as a "revolutionary," but with „commodity and ware critique“, "production critique." He saw himself as the "heir of liberalism," not as its destroyer.
He wanted freedom to become accessible to everyone, not a privilege for few.
And he started with commodity critique because the production of commodities is what workers confront every day.
He took the approach that goods and products shouldn't simply be determined "from above", that a factory owner alone should dictate what should be produced and what the product should contain, but that employees should participate in the process and be allowed to critically examine products.
But Marx had little success with this.
It was „too strenuous“ for „the masses“…
"Success" only came when he joined the so-called "revolutionaries" who wanted to destroy and take possession of the machines, but didn't want to engage with the content of production.
In „real existing Socialism," the same crap was produced as in capitalism, but without freedom of criticism, research, or further development.
There was a „Five-Year-Plan“ announced by „the Leaders“ and everyone had to follow up.
But even in supposedly free liberalism, firstly, the possibilities for influencing and critically rethinking production and services are limited; secondly, "the people" limit themselves in doing so…!
Even more: they run after exactly those politicians who want/ would restrict their freedom even more …
As soon as someone presents them with critical considerations of what and how they produce and consume, the "majority" switches into defense mode and screams, "I won't let myself be dictated what I want to / should eat.“
Paradoxically so, they perceive the opportunity, the offer for free thought as a lack of freedom, as the imposition of rules… !
Because, as the "majority," they are not accustomed to thinking for themselves and critically, and have been discouraged from doing so from early age - by „Family Values“ etc.
This "majority" is then allowed, for example, to "vote" and determine politics and the state, their appearance and structure.
If the result is devastating, it's of course not „their“ fault of „We The People", but rather of "politicians," „businessmen“, „enterprise“, „capitalism" etc.
"Socialism" is no solution at all because virtually all "socialists" aren't concerned with what Marx originally wanted or had tried to point out: a further development of liberalism - but rather with what's "popular": producing the same shit as before, just not asking any profound questions, just "making more money from work“ and by thus destroying foundation of prolific production.
Anyone who disagrees and thinks for themselves and critically questions production, goods, and services is then a "counter-revolutionary“.
There's almost no critical analysis anymore—that's why „real existing socialism" was bound to fail. -
But capitalism/liberalism despite its problems is fundamentally far more successful, as it fundamentally embraces development, progress, and freedom.
However, as long as the "majority" continues to slumber and prefers to elect idiots like Trump or the "Democrats," who helplessly and disorientately vacillate between capitalism and "socialism" and, when in doubt, prefer to follow the dumbing down of the "people" to gain "votes," capitalism is digging its own grave, even though there is and never will be a better alternative anywhere.
But "the people" are wasting all opportunities just to have it "peaceful and quiet“ without reflecting „too much“ - at most about themselves.
Many good points, but hasn't polling shown young men strongly shifting right? Also if this is about fairness, why are less affluent black and hispanic voters immune to socialism's charms?
I also disagree with the premise that socialism's winning message is rooted "fairness". Capitalism's winning message is about fairness (idealistically: reward proportional to value generation). Socialism's winning message is the "free stuff" you mentioned - the rich are simply hoarding all the cash and if they just shared it we would all live like them.
I simply have yet to be convinced by the many pieces like this that this phenomenon (here in America) is anything other than the participation trophy set failing to come to grasps with the fact that the reasons things aren't working for them in [major city] is that they are not that special. The white guilt relief is an added bonus.
I attribute it to the decline in the Puritan culture and traditions of hard work as a path to a better future. Rise of easy money through hustling, being an influencer etc. devalued the meaning of work and changed the perception that money must be earned. And, of course, the more handouts are given by the government, the more people take it for granted.
Absolutely, All traits of the "participation trophy set". No better way to devalue the meaning of work in a child than to never make them work hard for anything.
People who promote socialism mostly fall into the categories of ignorant or stupid. The ignorant comprise those unaware of socialism's record for impoverishing societies and haven't read authors like F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, or Thomas Sowell. Then there are those who lack the intellectual capacity to understand the theoretical and experienced cases.
Lets not forget that third category. malevolent and power hungry.🙂
I think another factor is a misunderstanding of what capitalism, or at least free markets, are. Listen to people talk about our "free market health care system" and you can see. It's been distorted by government systems, massive regulation and tax-induced third-party payments. A market can't exist where price signals aren't allowed, and the world is full of economic systems that are not socialist but are distorted so much by regulation that they can't really be called free markets. And yet, I bet all the socialism fans at issue here assume that anything less than socialism is unrestrained laissez-faire capitalism.
I suppose in some ways I'm making the same argument as the Abundance guys, but they try to minimize the scope of it, lest the regulatory state lose its overall power.
Coleman Hughes' argument suffers from the same elite myopia he tries to critique. The idea that socialism is making a comeback among "the young" assumes far too much about the average young American. Most young people who aren’t on a college track—let alone immersed in the kinds of intellectual environments Hughes inhabits—neither understand nor care about socialism as a doctrine. What he’s really describing is a subset of the professional-managerial class and the activist left.
More importantly, Hughes attributes socialism’s appeal to lofty emotional instincts—fairness, equality, even something akin to religious longing. But this glosses over something far more grounded: resentment. Much of what parades as socialist thought today is better understood as grievance politics aimed at punishing those who are better off. It’s less about justice than revenge, and less about policy than identity.
Hughes also recycles the idea that the core socialist message is “take from the rich and give to the poor”—but that’s not uniquely socialist. That’s a Christian ethic, a populist slogan, and a welfare-state talking point, none of which require socialism. True socialism involves public or collective ownership of the means of production. By that standard, it’s not enduring—it has failed every time it has tried to scale beyond the commune or the kibbutz. Where is the well-functioning socialist state today?
Finally, Hughes’ preferred alternative—the so-called “abundance agenda”—rings hollow. If it amounts to deregulation in the name of growth, it risks becoming little more than a permission slip for capital to offload its externalities onto the public. If unchecked, it could erode the very quality of life it claims to deliver and push even more voters toward economic populism, if not outright socialism.
In short, Hughes is engaging with the rhetoric of socialism, not its political or economic reality. He’s diagnosing the symptoms, but misreading the underlying pathology.
RULE #1 Start with 2 basic premises, INCENTIVES & RISK. From the first humanoids moving out of tribe for better hunting/gathering to deciding to place seeds in the ground to grow food, harvest it, store it & remain in place forming communities, then cities, then states, then nations. There have always been winners & losers as human nature & nature itself is UNFAIR. Every attempt to engineer fairness has been a failure. Improvements in our economic & social attitudes are based on & succeed by following Rule #1 above. Add time & pressure and you have progress. Socialism/Communism fails as negates Rule #1
Is there life after socialism? 😶
Karl Marx didn't originally start out as a "revolutionary," but with „commodity and ware critique“, "production critique." He saw himself as the "heir of liberalism," not as its destroyer.
He wanted freedom to become accessible to everyone, not a privilege for few.
And he started with commodity critique because the production of commodities is what workers confront every day.
He took the approach that goods and products shouldn't simply be determined "from above", that a factory owner alone should dictate what should be produced and what the product should contain, but that employees should participate in the process and be allowed to critically examine products.
But Marx had little success with this.
It was „too strenuous“ for „the masses“…
"Success" only came when he joined the so-called "revolutionaries" who wanted to destroy and take possession of the machines, but didn't want to engage with the content of production.
In „real existing Socialism," the same crap was produced as in capitalism, but without freedom of criticism, research, or further development.
There was a „Five-Year-Plan“ announced by „the Leaders“ and everyone had to follow up.
But even in supposedly free liberalism, firstly, the possibilities for influencing and critically rethinking production and services are limited; secondly, "the people" limit themselves in doing so…!
Even more: they run after exactly those politicians who want/ would restrict their freedom even more …
As soon as someone presents them with critical considerations of what and how they produce and consume, the "majority" switches into defense mode and screams, "I won't let myself be dictated what I want to / should eat.“
Paradoxically so, they perceive the opportunity, the offer for free thought as a lack of freedom, as the imposition of rules… !
Because, as the "majority," they are not accustomed to thinking for themselves and critically, and have been discouraged from doing so from early age - by „Family Values“ etc.
This "majority" is then allowed, for example, to "vote" and determine politics and the state, their appearance and structure.
If the result is devastating, it's of course not „their“ fault of „We The People", but rather of "politicians," „businessmen“, „enterprise“, „capitalism" etc.
"Socialism" is no solution at all because virtually all "socialists" aren't concerned with what Marx originally wanted or had tried to point out: a further development of liberalism - but rather with what's "popular": producing the same shit as before, just not asking any profound questions, just "making more money from work“ and by thus destroying foundation of prolific production.
Anyone who disagrees and thinks for themselves and critically questions production, goods, and services is then a "counter-revolutionary“.
There's almost no critical analysis anymore—that's why „real existing socialism" was bound to fail. -
But capitalism/liberalism despite its problems is fundamentally far more successful, as it fundamentally embraces development, progress, and freedom.
However, as long as the "majority" continues to slumber and prefers to elect idiots like Trump or the "Democrats," who helplessly and disorientately vacillate between capitalism and "socialism" and, when in doubt, prefer to follow the dumbing down of the "people" to gain "votes," capitalism is digging its own grave, even though there is and never will be a better alternative anywhere.
But "the people" are wasting all opportunities just to have it "peaceful and quiet“ without reflecting „too much“ - at most about themselves.