Why is Support for Socialism Growing? Is it the Highly Skewed Wealth Distribution?

Recent survey data reveal that support for socialism is increasing in the United States. This may be surprising, given that socialism is a much-criticized economic system that has failed spectacularly everywhere it has been tried. The mounting support for socialism reflects a growing frustration with capitalism and the economic woes of an increasing proportion of the population that believes it has been left behind.

The election of Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani as mayor of a city that is home to Wall Street is sobering. This pied piper of economic illiteracy has been swept into office by a majority of voters that have grown so disillusioned with the status quo that they see the mirage of economic prosperity in the false promises of socialism. We ignore this development at our own peril.

There are three primary factors that collectively explain the growing support for socialism in the U.S. First, wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the top. Second, while the distribution of wealth is highly skewed, the distribution of votes across the electorate is not. Third, the myth that refuses to die is that wealth can be redistributed without significantly reducing its size.

The Highly Skewed U.S. Wealth Distribution

Winston Churchill observed that “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Because abilities and talent are not uniformly distributed across the population, neither is the concomitant distribution of wealth. The framers recognized the need for the government to protect the rights of the citizenry to acquire property in accordance with their individual skills and abilities.

Writing in Federalist 10, James Madison was prescient about the delicate balance that must be maintained.

Let's be honest...

Wealth in the U.S. is far more concentrated today than at any time in modern history. Over the past four decades wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the top. The wealthiest 1% of Americans held 22.8% of U.S. net worth in 1989 with this share rising to 30.8% by 2024. In dollar terms, the top 1% held $49.2 trillion in wealth in 2024.

Moving to the other end of the distribution, the bottom 50% held 3.5% of total U.S. wealth in 1989 with this number shrinking to 2.8% by 2024. Federal Reserve data reveal that the least-wealthy 50% of U.S. households hold less than 4% of the nation’s wealth, while households in the top 10% hold over two-thirds of that wealth.

Yes. The Middle Class, where I live, has been eviscerated. Over the past five years, my monthly expenses have increased nearly $2,000. I’ve not changed anything. Same house, same car, same pretty much everything. Insurance, groceries, and literally everything else have just skyrocketed. (Example: took a friend to lunch. We both had BLTs. He had water. I had iced tea. The tab, with tip was $54. Going out for lunch used to be fun. Not any more!). That $2K used to be MY money. I could use it for fun, if I wanted to, or save it. No longer. Who now has that money? Someone does. It’s just not me. And I know I’m never getting it back. That makes me angry at a very deep level, and I have to believe alot of others feel the same.

Oh and to add:

“ There are three primary factors that collectively explain the growing support for socialism in the U.S. First, wealth has become increasingly concentrated at the top. Second, while the distribution of wealth is highly skewed, the distribution of votes across the electorate is not. Third, the myth that refuses to die is that wealth can be redistributed without significantly reducing its size.”

Missed to top one: the NEA’s indoctrination of kids for decades.

This is a variation on the 9/11 atrocities causing the professors and media to ask “Why do they hate us?”

If someone contributes to society, makes money and this is more than the ones who feel resentful, it means the resentful ones should better their situation, not bring the top ones down to the bottom in socialism/communism.

And ALL communist rulers end up with themselves in high class mansions along with insiders while millions starve.

Let’s see Mamdani’s anti-American father use the new free bus to get to the food line at the socialist grocery distribution center.

“The wealthiest 1% of Americans held 22.8% of U.S. net worth in 1989 with this share rising to 30.8% by 2024.
My take: There was a lot less crony capitalism in the Reagan years than there has been since.”

My take:
A few people like Zuckerberg and Musk skew the numbers somewhat. Maybe quite a bit.

FWIW, with a convertible/Fiat/paper currency, it doesn’t matter. When money was represented by gold, silver, or copper coins, it was possible for me to not enough. Nowadays, the fact that Elon Musk has $ 300 billion is not a problem because it means that Elon can have 300 trillion if he wants, and I still have the funds to buy groceries.

The Fiat currency effectively allows the rich to get rich without the poor getting poorer.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.