Democratic Socialists Are Courting the Youth - How do we stop them?

American Thinker ^ | 22 Jul, 2026 | Carole Hornsby Haynes

[MtnClimber]

In recent years, America’s positive views about capitalism have declined, and its positive views about socialism have increased. The shift is especially pronounced among younger voters. A 2021 Gallup poll found that just 47 percent of American youth, aged 18 to 34, favored capitalism, down nearly 20 points from 10 years earlier. By 2025, support had plunged still more, with only 39 percent favoring capitalism, according to the Harvard Youth Poll.

The shift helps explain the rise in support by Gen Z and Millennial voters for political candidates affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). New York City’s Gen Z and Millennial voters turned out en masse to elect DSA candidates.

DSA advocates for government control over almost every aspect of the economy, which brings loss of personal freedom. Why would young voters reject free market capitalism when it is responsible for much of America’s standing as the world’s largest economy and the most innovations over the past century. Why would young adults reject free market capitalism, which has brought economic freedom and lifted more than one billion people out of poverty worldwide?

A survey by Newsweek showed clearly that Gen Z and Millennials do not understand free market capitalism and socialism.

Of those responding, 55 percent believed that capitalism is an economic system in which property is privately owned and production and pricing are driven by market forces. This is free-market capitalism.

The other 45 percent viewed capitalism as an economic system in which corporations gain an edge over competitors with special tax breaks, political connections, and separate rules. This is crony capitalism.

The distinctions matter: 42 percent of those who identified free market capitalism viewed it positively, whereas 2 percent of those who identified capitalism as crony capitalism held a positive view.

---

TOPICS: Society
KEYWORDS: communism

[central_va]

Here are the formulas that apply:

Capitalism + globalism => Communism.
Capitalism + nationalism => Freedom.

[Drew68]

You stop them by having better ideas.

They need results. They need a path to the middle class. They need to be able to buy a home, buy a car, see a doctor, earn a pension.

Too many young people feel that they will never be able to afford the lifestyle their parents had and yet they look around and every brown person, every illegal immigrant, is already enjoying the fruits of socialism with their free homes (Section 8), free health care (Medicaid), free food, (SNAP, WIC), free walking around money (EBT, TANF) and countless other government gibs we hardly even know about.

They're starting to say, "Well, If I'll never be able to afford a home, why don't you just give me one like you gave Faisal and Shaniqua."

[Opinionated Blowhard]

In recent years, America’s positive views about capitalism have declined

There's the fallacy in conservative thought. Its not "in recent years." Socialism didn't sneak up on a Capitalism-loving society. Capitalism has been undermined over a century of Socialism masquerading as the Welfare State. This author doesn't think that the massive system of transfer payments and regulations created over the past century isn't Socialism? The only thing missing is government ownership of the means of production and we even got that - under Republican presidents no less (Nixon with Amtrak and Bush with TARP). Today's Socialism is just truth in advertising. Until conservatives get real about a massive cutback in the Welfare State and stop trying to twist themselves in knots to say that the massive system of transfer payments that the US has is compatible with Capitalism, we are going to continue down the road to Socialism. And let's have even more truth in advertising. We aren't' talking about Socialism. We are talking about totalitarianism. We are talking about a complete loss of freedom and our children living under a political dictatorship.

[JusPasenThru]

I witnessed the closing of a VBS at the local Presbyterian Church yesterday. This was the leader’s parting words to the kids: “Give what you have and only take what you need, and the world would be a much better place”. He forgot to say “You have nothing to lose but your chains”. Pure Marxist indoctination.

[central_va]

You can blame 40 years of Free Trade and globalism for destroying any chance of achieving a middle class life.

"But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade."

-- Karl Marx, 1848 speech on trade.

[kaktuskid]

Just show them the photos of skull piles from “socialist” countries.

[blueunicorn6]

The young are raised on cartoons where everyone is nice.

Socialism/Communism always, ALWAYS, leads to misery and horror just so some different people can ride around in the back of government limousines.

[Extropist]

If young people, even ones with good jobs, are priced out of real opportunities which the previous generations enjoyed, where’s the incentive? That’s the real problem. The US had a convincing argument in effects for a generation after WWII which built up and elevated the middle class, and which created loyalty towards that system and a feeling of agency & support which trended Americans towards protecting that system.

However, that’s not the case anymore. Increasingly, Americans are dissatisfied, perceive opportunities closing, and are no longer trending to the right as they get older particularly as you go down the generational line up.

Viewing this as just a matter of miseducation is ultimately an abdication, and when this had come up before, people said, to some extent correctly in structure, that real life experience would ultimately inform and shape those outlooks. Well, that is exactly what is happening - ideology is meeting the road of material reality. Republicans need to wise up and realize that policies which have gutted manufacturing, taken up by big business and corporate fat-cats & pols bought and paid for by the same cabals, and restrictive building covenants & other structures which have had the effect of enriching those who had already bought into the property markets (by constraining building where economic activity occurs), and more have been ruinous and hollowed out the pathway to economic security and political security. Republicans and Democrats, to different extents in different issues, have both contributed to this problem, but just finger pointing at the other side also doesn’t mean doing the work of casting aside those policies.

If they don’t, then the current incentive structure will continue to inform people’s outlooks and expectations, and the kinds of policies they feel most urgently address the issues. Then where does that leave us? Probably in a worse place than folks losing value on their houses, having noisy manufacturing near them, or the other outcomes of effecting change in these policies.

[Brian Griffin]

“restrictive building covenants”

They exist for a reason. Prior to the 1920s, neighborhoods got trashed every time there was a major economic downturn.

You couldn’t get a mortgage for more than 50% of value before zoning came along.

[Brian Griffin]

“They need to be able to buy a home”

To buy a house now selling at $440,000 at $350,000 and then see the market value dropping by $20,000 a year to $330,000, $310,000, $290,000, $270,000, etc. is simply buying trouble and misery.

[Extropist]

There’s a difference in kind and in build volume between the earliest examples and later, expansive restrictions. The latter restrictions have basically been back-dooring socialism, and it’s arguably why urban Dems have been supportive of them.

Short sighted people chasing after policies that inflated the value of their domiciles (by constricting supply) and seeing them as an investment, and longer sighted people seeing trouble on the horizon when the process plays out and the problem arises into our current situation, have both played into the hands of the current agenda (albeit to different degrees of intentionality.)

Shattering that is necessary.

[Brian Griffin]

“Short sighted people”

Anybody who would vote for a Democratic Socialist is short-sighted.

[Brian Griffin]

“Shattering that is necessary.”

That reminds me of a block of brownstones that was “shattered” for the Museum of Modern Art in NYC circa 1939.

[Brian Griffin]

“Short sighted people chasing after policies that inflated the value of their domiciles (by constricting supply)”

Zoning is many places goes back 90 years or more.

The leftists and developer loving-Republicans are the ones chasing policy changes.

What next?

Should Apple have to issue 2% more shares each year into Trump accounts so the younger folks and imports can have “equity” just like the people that invested years ago?

The word “equity” is used for a reason by the leftists.

[Vermont Lt]

I think ALL of this stems back to the dissolution of the family. The frequency of single parent households dooms the next generation. They don’t have capital. They turn over “parenting” to a minimum wage teaching school drop out. They don’t get “dads” at home addressing culture and hard work.

Of course you always get the, “I only had a Mom and I turned out OK.” For the most part…that is simply not true.

[Extropist]

This is just a slippery slope crossing into a different issue, and belies the very real issue of mismatched and disappearing incentives and how humans respond to them. We don’t have to bother with equity, or similar nonsense, when a different e-word (effect, as in cause & effect) is informing us every which way that the current state of things is not holding.

[stars & stripes forever]

Hire pro-American public school teachers and college professors.

Change the curriculum too.

[Brian Griffin]

“slippery slope”

If the housing of building trade workers becomes 30% cheaper and more plentiful, the prices of building trade work might go down 30%.

If the housing of building trade workers becomes 40% cheaper and more plentiful, the prices of building trade work might go down 40%.

[drypowder]

Close all public schools and give that tax money back to the taxpayers and mandate the teaching of the Bible, American history and the 3 Rs in all private schools.

[Extropist]

This isn’t the issue referenced, it was the “If this policy then we slip into this other policy”. On the other hand, the contacts between the parts around building and home ownership all going down are naturally coordinate.

And that’s not necessarily a bad thing, either. Cheaper homes due to increased supply due to fewer market constraints will make the homes more accessible. Folks invested in homes for more than their material value as a result of the constraints in the market will see a valuative downturn or correction.

But, that’s a symptom of the rigging of the market to start with, not unlike other speculative vehicles running out and people holding the bag on them (an inherent risk of speculation.) Effective extra-market protections around that speculative market to foster it are just aberrations which have added to the drive left in our political spectrum in this country by contrast.