For decades, conservatives have relied on the same arguments when confronting socialism. Those of us who believe in free markets and individual liberty have leaned heavily on history and economics to make our case. We point to the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cuba, Venezuela, and other failed experiments, and we explain how socialism destroys prosperity, crushes innovation, rewards political favoritism, and concentrates power in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.
All of that is true. It is also no longer enough.
Modern socialists have developed a convenient response to every historical and economic objection: That was not real socialism. Or, that was not our kind of socialism. Or, that was authoritarian socialism, and what we want is “democratic socialism.”
In other words, every time socialism fails, socialists redefine socialism. Every catastrophe is just an unfortunate misunderstanding. Every breadline is someone else’s fault. Every communist dictatorship is dismissed as not truly socialist.
This rhetorical trick has worked remarkably well, especially with young Americans.
A Heartland Institute/Rasmussen Reports survey published in November found that 51% of likely voters ages 18 to 39 would like to see a socialist win the White House in 2028, and other polls asking about specific socialist policies are even more disturbing.
For example, a September Heartland Institute/Rasmussen poll of young likely voters found 76% said they “somewhat” or “strongly” agree that “Major Industries like health care, energy, and big tech should be nationalized to give more control and equity to the people.”
It seems obvious that conservatives’ anti-socialist arguments are not winning over nearly enough young hearts and minds.
If conservatives want to stop the rise of socialism, we must continue to explain socialism’s long record of economic failure. But we also need to make a more fundamental argument: Even if socialism could “work” economically, which it never would, it would still be deeply immoral.
Perhaps the best way to illustrate this reality is by showing young people, who place a high value on diversity, that socialism cannot tolerate true diversity — this fact becomes clear when individual choices are replaced by collective mandates.
That might sound strange, because the modern Left claims to worship diversity, pluralism, tolerance, and inclusion. Progressives constantly tell Americans that society must make room for every identity, every lifestyle, every viewpoint, and every moral tradition.
Yet socialism, by its very design, makes genuine pluralism impossible.
At the heart of socialism is collective control. The more socialistic a society becomes, the more private decisions are transferred to the state, or to some other collective authority acting in the name of “the people.” Industries are nationalized. Markets are replaced or heavily regulated. Healthcare, education, energy, housing, finance, agriculture, and other vital parts of life are put under the direction of politicians, bureaucrats, agencies, commissions, and courts.
Socialism redistributes wealth, yes, but it also redistributes moral authority.
In a free society, people with different values can often live alongside one another peacefully. A religious family can choose one school, while a secular family chooses another. A pro-life doctor can refuse to perform abortions, while a pro-choice patient can seek care elsewhere. A vegetarian can avoid buying meat. A gun-control activist can refuse to purchase a firearm. A parent can choose a school that reflects their values. A consumer can boycott a company. An entrepreneur can start a competing business.
Free markets do not eliminate moral conflict, but they do create space for people to make different choices. Socialism destroys that space.
For example, when the government controls healthcare, everyone is forced into the same moral system. If the state funds abortion, contraception, assisted suicide, or any other controversial service, then every taxpayer is compelled to participate financially, including millions of people who believe those acts are morally wrong. If the state refuses to fund those services, then those who believe they are basic rights will say their values have been violated.
There is no neutral answer, because there is only one system.
The same problem exists in education. When the government dominates schools, the most important questions about children are decided politically. What should kids learn about sex, marriage, religion, race, gender, America, capitalism, socialism, and morality? In a free society, families often choose different answers. In a socialist society, the state increasingly supplies one answer for everyone.
Socialists often insist that “democratic” socialism solves this problem because decisions will be made by the people. But democracy does not magically transform coercion into morality. A majority can violate fundamental rights just as surely as a king or dictator can.
Anyone familiar with history is well aware of this reality. It’s precisely how African Americans in the post-Civil War era had their rights suppressed.
The more power the state has over the economy, the more power it has over the conscience. Once government controls the institutions through which people live their daily lives, the right to disagree becomes increasingly meaningless.
This is the great irony of modern socialism. The same political movement that lectures America endlessly about diversity supports an economic system that cannot survive unless true diversity is crushed.
That is why socialism is more than just a catastrophically bad economic system. It’s deeply immoral. Some might even call it evil.
The Left wants Americans to believe socialism is compassionate because it promises free healthcare, free college, affordable housing, and economic security. It doesn’t really provide anything for free, of course. It takes by force wealth and property from some and gives it to others. But even if you believe that’s perfectly acceptable, reasonable people must also admit that socialism necessitates further moral coercion by imposing the values of the collective on every individual. Pluralism and tolerance are completely incompatible with such a system.
THE COALITION THAT CAPTURED THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOW THREATENS TO DESTROY IT
Conservatives should not allow socialists to hide behind vague slogans and utopian fantasies. Socialism has always failed to provide wealthier and healthier societies. But an even better strategy for combating socialism is to repeatedly show young people that under the best possible conditions, socialism destroys freedom and diversity too, no matter how well-intentioned its supporters might be.
Socialism is authoritarian, and it’s authoritarian by design. Who would want to dirty their reputation by identifying with such a reprehensible ideology?
Justin Haskins is a New York Times bestselling author, vice president at The Heartland Institute, and a senior fellow for Our Republic.