- Half of young people in America have a favorable view of socialism
- Socialists are making their appeal by promising to deliver freedom
- But socialism offers the opposite of freedom, compelling its subjects to submit to the plans of a central authority
As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of our nation’s founding, socialists in America are cynically exploiting our country’s traditional value of freedom to gain support for their economic system.
Recently elected New York City mayor and self-avowed socialist Zohran Mamdani promised city voters that his platform would “win freedom for all,” and as a candidate he proclaimed that his victory would be an “opportunity to show the world what it means to win freedom.”
The Democratic Socialists of America sing a similar tune, promising a “transition to a freer, more just life.”
Unfortunately, recent polling suggests this branding effort is working — especially with the younger generation.
An August 2025 Gallup poll showed that half (49 percent) of people aged 18–34 have a positive view of socialism, higher than the 46 percent with a negative view. Among self-identified Democrats, two-thirds (66 percent) expressed a positive view of socialism.
But does socialism really offer the makings of a freer society?
Of course not.
The late, great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises dismantled the notion of socialism offering anything remotely resembling freedom in his collection of essays titled “Money, Method, and the Market Process.”
The critical difference between socialism and a free-enterprise, capitalistic system is having private ownership and direction over the means of production. These include the resources — such as land, factories, machinery, and inputs — utilized in the production of finished goods.
“Such is the alternative,” Mises wrote. “Mankind has to choose: On the one side — private property in the material factors of production. Then the demand of the consumers on the market determines what has to be produced, of what quality, and in what quantity.”
In contrast, on the “other side” under socialism, “all the material factors of production are owned by the central authority and thus every individual entirely depends on its will and has to obey its orders. This authority alone determines what has to be produced and what and how much each comrade should be permitted to use or to consume.”
It’s easy to see how socialism is antithetical to freedom, not the “freedom for all” that Mamdani and company promise.
Moreover, a market economy empowers the many over the few.
Mises wrote, “In the market economy, the buyers determine with every penny spent the direction of the production process and thereby the essential features of all business activities. The consumers assign to everybody his position and function in the economic organism.”
Ultimately, consumers are calling the shots, not a small group of business owners or a government planning bureau. “The owners of the material factors of production are virtually mandatories or trustees of the consumers, revocably appointed by a daily repeated election,” Mises continued. “If they fail in their attempts to serve the consumers in the best possible and cheapest way, they suffer losses and, if they do not reform in time, lose their property.”
We, the people, in our daily decisions of which products to buy or abstain from buying are the ones who determine which companies thrive and in turn which business owners grow rich. The economy’s intricate pattern of production reflects the preferences of the masses as transmuted through our voluntary decisions. The usage of billions of dollars’ worth of productive resources are determined by the masses, not politicians.
That would not be the case under socialism. “In such a socialist universe everything will be planned by the supreme authority and to the individual ‘comrades’ no other sphere of action will be left than unconditional surrender to the will of their masters,” Mises wrote.
And, contrary to the promises of the “Democratic” Socialists, the market economy more closely resembles a democracy than socialism could ever hope to.
As Mises wrote, “The market is the prototype of what are called democratic institutions. Supreme power is vested in the buyers, and vendors succeed only by satisfying in the best possible way the wants of the buyers. Private ownership of the factors of production forces the owners — enterprisers — to serve the consumers. Eminent economists have called the market a democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote.”
In a free enterprise system, the owners of the factors of production must be true public servants if they want to succeed.
And let there be no mistake, it is the market-based, capitalist system that has provided a massive benefit to the average person. As Mises noted, “the living conditions of the immense majority of people have improved spectacularly” thanks to this system. “Implements never known before or considered as extravagant luxuries are now customarily available to the average man,” he concluded.
Don’t be fooled by the siren song of freedom being sung by the socialists. A socialist system empowers the few over the many, subjecting the masses to be at the disposal and direction of a centralized authority. Moreover, without the interplay of a free enterprise system, “there cannot be any question of a standard of living worthy of the qualification human,” as Mises warned.
Here’s hoping America doesn’t have to learn this lesson the hard way.
