Why Many College Students Favor Socialism — And Why Critics Say That's Misguided

Criticism of capitalism is common on college campuses. A recent Axios-Generation Lab poll finds that, on balance, many college students prefer socialism to capitalism. This article reviews the main arguments behind that preference and the counterarguments offered by economists and commentators.

How Students See Socialism

Many students are drawn to socialism by appeals to equality and fairness, and by distrust of concentrated wealth and corporate power. Influential intellectuals and politicians sometimes reinforce those views by distinguishing between idealized socialism and its historical implementations.

Did the Soviet Union Represent "Real" Socialism?

Some defenders of socialism argue the Soviet Union was not "real socialism." Critics counter that point with a straightforward observation: the Soviet state eliminated most private enterprise and substituted state ownership for private property on a broad scale. As economist Ben Powell summarizes,

"Socialism means abolishing private property and…replacing it with some form of collective ownership. The Soviet Union had an abundance of that."

Venezuela: A Cautionary Example

Venezuela is frequently cited as an example of an economy that moved from relative prosperity to crisis. Once one of Latin America's wealthier nations, it now faces severe shortages, hyperinflation, and political dysfunction. Some commentators, including outlets like Al Jazeera, argue that Venezuela's collapse stems largely from poor governance, corruption, and policy mistakes rather than the abstract idea of socialism. Critics of that defense respond that centralized economic control and poorly designed state interventions are intrinsic risks of many socialist experiments.

What About Scandinavia?

Supporters of socialism sometimes point to Norway, Sweden and Denmark as working models. But these countries operate predominantly market-based economies with extensive private sectors. Many industries — from automakers to restaurants and hotels — are privately owned. As Denmark's former prime minister has emphasized, Denmark is a market economy, not a centrally planned socialist state. The Nordic model combines free markets with robust welfare systems and high public spending, which is distinct from classical socialism.

Markets, Poverty Reduction, And The Wealth Debate

Defenders of markets point to global poverty statistics: market-led growth and economic liberalization have coincided with large declines in extreme poverty worldwide over recent decades. Proponents argue that voluntary exchange and entrepreneurial innovation expand the overall economic pie, lifting many people’s living standards.

"In the last 20 years, we've seen more humans escape extreme poverty than any other time in human history, and that's because of markets," economist Ben Powell observes.

Common Misconceptions

Two recurring myths shape public debate:

• The Zero-Sum Myth: The idea that wealth is fixed and the rich gain only by taking from others. Critics argue that innovation and new value creation — not mere redistribution — are major engines of rising incomes.
• The Billionaire Fallacy: Calls to abolish billionaires reflect concerns about inequality, but defenders of wealth creation emphasize voluntariness: wealthy entrepreneurs typically accrue gains by selling products and services people choose to buy.

Where The Debate Goes From Here

The debate ultimately centers on trade-offs: how to combine market incentives that promote innovation and growth with public policies that address inequality, market failures, and social safety nets. Historical examples — from the Soviet Union to Venezuela to the Nordic countries — are often invoked on both sides, but each example illustrates different configurations of policy, governance, and outcomes.

I explore these myths and examples in greater depth in my new video.