Socialism is not the answer to anyone's needs, particularly students, where teachers' union Marxists are preaching 'safe' schools and gender-bending rather than things that would help with the economic prospects of the students.

If history was taught – honestly - the students could find out about the economic conditions produced in Stalinist Russia, where people starved in their thousands (if they weren't murdered by the regime first). Karl Marx said: “The first battlefield is the rewriting of history.... take away the heritage of people and they are easily destroyed”.

Current teachers and politicians are ignorant of the history of socialism and its abject failures. Therefore, there is little we can do to arrest the march to destruction. Maybe a Trump might come along?

The younger generations, and indeed many members of older generations, don't view the world through Cold War blinkers! It is truly ludicrous to pretend we have to choose between the entire package of capitalism and the entire package of socialism! 'Tis much better to pick and choose the features we like, regardless of where they come from.

Even half a century ago, Britain's socialists had largely abandoned the idea that central planning was an adequate substitute for markets. Socialism became more about the redistribution of wealth than about ownership of the means of production. And though widespread support for nationalisation remained, it was increasingly pragmatic. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who still thinks car manufacturers should be nationalized, for example.

As for Marx, he developed an innovative new approach to economics that should certainly be studied in universities. As should the way his overreliance on the labour theory of value frequently led him to the wrong conclusions.

And finally, the danger from communism is long gone. So I'm quite surprised that only twice as many young people regard big business as a danger than fear communism. I guess capitalists can take solace in that.

Aidan,

socialism
noun
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Considering that the greens and others are calling for the re nationalization of the energy sector, it looks like the threat of socialism is not quite dead.

As you say it is the millenials who have no experience of the complete economic cock ups of socialism that are drawn to its siren song.

As for state welfare, it is important to ensure a healthy and educated work force, but the moment it goes too far, you get tax evasion and high flyers emigrating.

Shadow,

I'm aware of the original definition of socialism. But I contend that definition is obsolete, as it's not what most people who self identify as socialists support.

And socialism is not a threat at all. There is no siren song. Where people advocate nationalisation, it's usually because of the market failures they've seen.

The threat of high flyers emigrating is vastly overblown. If some go, others will replace them. And tax evasion has nothing to do with state welfare going too far.

What students need is direction....you can call it whatever you want and it'll mean nothing without a sense of purpose.
Everyone is preoccupied with labels....as if they are a replacement for direction.
There is no political label that has ever created a stable and secure social society.
The only cultures that have any sense of social stability are mono cultures with one of the pillars of these societies being 'respect'
Respect is the social reference all understand, and are aware of, even if they don't practice it...... and they practice it least in responsibility free societies...like Australia
Ahhh democracy....you can choose as you please, as long as no one objects to your freedom.

Aidan,

I beg to disagree, I think that you would find very few of those identifying as socialist being comfortable with the sale of state assets.

Secondly, the high flyers are typically the most mobile, and countries with lower income tax rates attract high income earners and low company tax rates attract company investment, meaning that high taxing "socialist" states end up with slow economic and wage growth. A clear example is the UK which has gained about 25% in GDP relative to the more socialist France in the last 20 years.