Is Socialism Viable?

Why younger voters see promise in socialism-and what history suggests they should consider.

On an evening in June, as people headed to the polls for primary voting for the mid-term elections, one thing became clear: younger voters want change. They want institutions they can trust, a fair economy, and a future that can help them achieve their hopes and dreams.

This hope of a younger generation to earn a decent income, be able to afford a home, and enjoy a modest standard of living is constructive and can be realized by repairing the institutions that they have inherited. The challenge, however, is the direction such change might take.

Many young people are under the impression that socialism – an economy presided over by an administrative state – can cure our institutional ills. In reality, it may further heighten them.

It’s fair – and important – to look beyond the attractive rhetoric of progressive politicians to understand the historical precedents set by centralized economic systems. This is where the work of the late economist F.A. Hayek becomes especially relevant. His work helps us ask a crucial question: What must people give up to get what socialism promises? And this question matters even more for the generation now in their twenties and thirties, who didn’t live through the Soviet collapse.

Hayek wrote in the decades following World War II, as he watched European nations experiment with centralized economic planning – and he lived long enough to see the damage those systems produced.

For example, he saw how governments, in the name of fairness, gradually took on more control than they could reasonably manage, and how that control often led to shortages, political pressure, and the erosion of personal freedom.

The generation that is now in their twenties and thirties didn’t live through the Soviet collapse, the economic stagnation of Eastern Europe, or the failures of centrally planned economies. They didn’t see the moral cost of bureaucratic control or the way everyday life was shaped by shortages and political pressure. So while it’s understandable that socialism can appear as a straightforward path to fairness, it is a system with a long and complicated historical record. Recent history offers a clear example.

In Venezuela, leaders assured citizens that sweeping reforms would deliver fairness, stability, and shared prosperity. What followed was the steady nationalization of industries, rigid price controls, and the concentration of economic power in the hands of the state. The result was not renewal but collapse – shortages, political pressure, and the erosion of personal freedoms.

Politicians often promise more than they can deliver when it comes to quickly and painlessly instituting sweeping reforms. But the long tale of history shows that when those reforms rely on centralized control, they tend to produce ruin rather than renewal. The question often left unanswered is not whether change is needed but what citizens must give up to get what socialism offers.

A familiar pattern appears throughout history. Public restlessness grows; a movement promises transformation; citizens are told the existing system must be swept aside. The rhetoric is appealing, but the results often fall far short of the promises.

Around the world, we’re seeing renewed confidence in state-centered solutions – a belief that governments can engineer fairness if only they have enough authority. It’s a sentiment gaining traction in Europe, South America, and even here at home. But the appeal of these promises doesn’t erase the historical record of what happens when economic power becomes concentrated in the hands of the state. One need only look at Venezuela.

Venezuela’s story is sobering. A nation once among the wealthiest in Latin America embraced a political project promising equality, justice, and renewal. Over time, democratic norms eroded, institutions weakened, and power consolidated. The result has been economic collapse, mass migration, and widespread human suffering. The rhetoric was uplifting; the reality was devastating. These outcomes are what happens when political language is trusted more than political behavior.

There is little argument that institutional change needs to be made in America. The frustrations younger voters feel is not imaginary; they reflect real institutional failures that need repair. The real issue is what must be surrendered to get the version of change socialism offers, and whether a reformed, more accountable capitalism could achieve the same goals without those losses.