Younger generations of ignorant Democrats view Socialist ideas as more favorable than older generations of Americans who understand that Socialism is just Communism with lipstick.
Older Americans grew up during the Cold War and are educated to understand that Socialism is the last step before a nation is controlled by full-blown authoritarian Communism. Unlike young Democrats, older Americans are not ignorant of history and rightfully associate "Socialism" with the Soviet Union and authoritarian Communism.
Older Americans understand that Socialist policies have historically lead to oppression, the elimination of freedom, liberty, and personal autonomy. They've seen Socialist government overreach, the economic stagnation of Socialist countries, the hardship, the empty store shelves, the people standing in long lines to buy bread, the death and defeated people of those nations. Educated Americans understand that there's no difference between Socialism's heavy handed state control and Communist oppression, authoritarianism, and how people become slaves to the state under such forms of government.
Generational differences are stark. Older Americans see Socialism from the lens of seeing the horrors of Socialism and Communism in China, Cuba, and the Soviet Union all first hand. This versus that of young Democrats who have been indoctrinated into loving such a slave system by snake oil salesmen like Bernie Sanders, leftist teachers, and wealthy celebrities who are not very bright.
The word "Socialism" is used today to attract young Democrats who think something called "Socialism" means free stuff.
Historically, Germany's National Socialist German Workers' Party, also known as the Nazi Party, used the word "Socialist" in its name to attract working-class voters. Yes, the same thing that the Democrat Socialists are doing today. Of coarse, today, the goal is for Democrat Socialists is to transition from creating wealth for Americans at every level of our society with American-style Capitalism and turn the United States into to a Communist Soviet-style economy ultimately controlled by a small group in the government. Yes, just like what destroyed the Soviet Union.
The use of the term "Socialism" among younger Democrats reflects a significant shift in political language and generational values. Modern polling shows that younger Democrats view the word more favorably than older Americans for good reasons. Most young Democrats associate "Socialism" with "Democratic Socialism" and they will tell you that the Nordic Model works.
They claim the Nordic Model system offers universal healthcare, free college, and stronger labor protections. They say it is a prime example of "Democratic Socialism." Their problem is that they have no idea what they are talking about. And yes, even the nations that are practicing the Nordic Model have come out to dispute what Democrats are saying. Those nation disavow any connections to Democratic Socialism. So yes, we're being lied to. But I'll get to that in a minute.
What Democrat Socialists are doing is trying to rebrand "Socialism" to make it easier to swallow. That is what today's young Democrats, those who adore Communism, are all about. Both they and Democrat politicians use the label "Democratic Socialism" to show their dissatisfaction with our form of government and our free-market Capitalism.
They say "Socialism" will work if "everyone" is forced to be onboard with it. Their idea is an old one. Their idea is that "everyone" has to be on the 'Socialist" page to make it work. Yes, including using the policy of "Forced Collectivization." Forced Collectivism is a government policy that abolishes private property and forces individuals into government-controlled group ownership and labor. Today, young Democrats are relabeling government-controlled group ownership as "Democratic Socialism."
Historically, Socialist/Communist nations used "Forced Collectivization" to consolidate private farms into government-run collective units. It failed badly and resulted in severe economic disruption and immense human cost. It originate in the Soviet Union when they implementation the policy under Joseph Stalin. He instituted "forced collectivization."
Private family farms were ended and merged into large "Collective Farms" called "Kolkhozy" and government-run farms called "Sovkhozes". The government then targeted landowning "peasants." The government outlawed private property for the "good of the collective," and through arrests, land confiscations, forced deportations to work camps and prisons, and executions, the Socialists eliminated opposition to their policy.
What it resulted in would make anyone who believes in Karma, stand up and applaud. Socialist agricultural declined drastically. Because the Socialists either deported the farmers to work camps and prisons or executed them, the loss of those experienced farmers, those who actually knew what they were doing and not political theorists who didn't known their ass from a hole in the ground, there was a catastrophic drops in farm productivity -- which resulted in widespread famines.
What it resulted in would make anyone who believes in Karma, stand up and applaud. Socialist agricultural declined drastically. Because the Socialists either deported the farmers to work camps and prisons or executed them, the loss of those experienced farmers, those who actually knew what they were doing and not political theorists who didn't known their ass from a hole in the ground, there was a catastrophic drops in farm productivity -- which resulted in widespread famines.
Government controls failed drastically and output of food was almost nonexistent. Soon, the government imposed quotas and below-market fixed pricing to feed growing urban and industrial centers. Yes, this is why they had long lines for food before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their government mandated "Forced Collectivism" led to widespread starvation.
Here's something else, the Socialists-Communists who came up with those Brainiac policies forced other Soviet-bloc Eastern European nations to do the same. They all used the same coercive systems across various Eastern Bloc and international Communist countries, and every one of those nations had horrible results including economic collapse and food scarcity.
So yes, there are good reasons why older Americans who remember what took place not that many years ago, are now looking at the young Democrats today who are wanting Socialism so bad, and shaking their heads. Young Democrats are too ignorant of the past to understand the threat of what they want.
For older Americans, their memories of what took place not that many years ago under Socialism and Communism have shaped their negative view of those two evils. It's because of what older Americans witnessed, that they understand why Socialism and Communism are the apex models of government overreach, high taxation, authoritarianism, oppression, loss of individual freedom, the loss of civil liberties, and the political repression that comes with Socialism. And yes, for those of us who lived through the Cold War era, Socialism is rightfully seen as a stepping stone to Communism.
While Millennial and Gen Z Democrats typically do not associate the word "Socialism" with Soviet-style Communism, they instead put lipstick on Socialism by referring to the same snake oil as "Democratic Socialism" or "Social Democracy" which they say is successful in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway.
The short answer is no. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway are free-market Capitalist countries no different than the United States. But, they use extremely high taxes to fund very large social programs, a system known as "Social Democracy" or the "Nordic Model," rather than "Democratic Socialism."
Calling what those nations do, "Democratic Socialism," is a malicious lie. It is a tactic of purposefully mislabeling by Democrat politicians who refuse to accept that a Capitalist free-market system works better than state-controlled Socialism.
The Nordic Model is Anti-Socialism
The policy of privatizing state monopolies, lowering top tax rates, and maintaining a universal basic social safety net is known as the Nordic Model. Specifically its modern, market-reform variant, is known as "Social Democracy."
The nations using the Nordic Model rank very high on global indexes for economic freedom, private property rights, and ease of doing business in the private sector. Companies can hire and fire workers easily, which keeps businesses competitive. In return, the government taxes their people through the roof so that it can provide universal healthcare, parental leave, and subsidized education.
How it's funded is not a secret. High broad taxes keep it going. Since services are not truly free, their working-class are taxed heavily. Those supposed "free programs" are paid for through heavy taxation.
How it's funded is not a secret. High broad taxes keep it going. Since services are not truly free, their working-class are taxed heavily. Those supposed "free programs" are paid for through heavy taxation.
The Nordic Model is free-market regulated Capitalism, and not a successful example of "Democratic Socialism." Leaders in Denmark and Norway have stated publicly that their economies are market-driven Capitalist systems, not Socialist economies.
While "Democratic Socialism" aims to replace or dismantle private ownership of major industries in favor of government or worker control. The Nordic Model uses wealth generated by private capitalism to fund public services and help the vulnerable.
As for the "Third Way" also called "Right-Social Democracy." This system was popularized in the 1990s. It is a political philosophy that explicitly rejects State-Socialism. It embraced privatization and market efficiency while using the tax base to fund universal public goods.
And here's something else that I found interesting, historically, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck introduced the world's first universal social insurance plans in the 1880s specifically as an "Anti-Socialist Strategy." His goal was to offer workers security under a Capitalist framework to kill the political appeal of Communist and Socialist revolutions.
Tom Correa
