Why College Students Prefer Socialism—and Why They're Wrong
When the media say the middle class is in decline, they're technically right—because people are getting richer.
People criticize capitalism. A recent Axios-Generation Lab poll says, "College students prefer socialism to capitalism."
Why?
Because they believe absurd myths. Like the claim that the Soviet Union "wasn't real socialism."
Socialism guru Noam Chomsky tells students that. He says the Soviet Union "was about as remote from socialism as you could imagine."
Give me a break.
The Soviets made private business illegal.
If that's not socialism, I'm not sure what is.
"Socialism means abolishing private property and…replacing it with some form of collective ownership," explains economist Ben Powell. "The Soviet Union had an abundance of that."
Socialism always fails. Look at Venezuela, the richest country in Latin America about 40 years ago. Now people there face food shortages, poverty, misery, and election outcomes the regime ignores.
But Al Jazeera claims Venezuela's failure has "little to do with socialism, and a lot to do with poor governance….Economic policies have failed to adjust to reality."
"That's the nature of socialism!" exclaims Powell. "Economic policies fail to adjust to reality. Economic reality evolves every day. Millions of decentralized entrepreneurs and consumers make fine tuning adjustments."
Political leaders can't keep up with that.
Still, pundits and politicians tell people, socialism does work—in Scandinavia.
Mad Money's Jim Cramer calls Norway "as socialist as they come!"
This too is nonsense.
"Sweden isn't socialist," says Powell. "Volvo is a private company. Restaurants, hotels, they're privately owned."
Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are all free market economies.
Denmark's former prime minister was so annoyed with economically ignorant Americans like Bernie Sanders calling Scandinavia "socialist," he came to America to tell Harvard students that his country "is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
Powell says young people "hear the preaching of socialism, about equality, but they don't look on what it actually delivers: poverty, starvation, early death."
For thousands of years, the world had almost no wealth creation. Then, some countries tried capitalism. That changed everything.
"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," says Powell.
Capitalism makes poor people richer.
Former Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D–N.Y.) calls capitalism "slavery by another name."
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) claims, "No one ever makes a billion dollars. You take a billion dollars."
That's another myth.
People think there's a fixed amount of money. So when someone gets rich, others lose.
But it's not true. In a free market, the only way entrepreneurs can get rich is by creating new wealth.
Yes, Steve Jobs pocketed billions, but by creating Apple, he gave the rest of us even more. He invented technology that makes all of us better off.
"I hope that we get 100 new super billionaires," says economist Dan Mitchell, "because that means 100 new people figured out ways to make the rest of our lives better off."
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich advocates the opposite: "Let's abolish billionaires," he says.
He misses the most important fact about capitalism: It's voluntary.
"I'm not giving Jeff Bezos any money unless he's selling me something that I value more than that money," says Mitchell.
It's why under capitalism, the poor and middle class get richer, too.
"The economic pie grows," says Mitchell. "We are much richer than our grandparents."
When the media say the "middle class is in decline," they're technically right, but they don't understand why it's shrinking.
"It's shrinking because more and more people are moving into upper income quintiles," says Mitchell. "The rich get richer in a capitalist society. But guess what? The rest of us get richer as well."
I cover more myths about socialism and capitalism in my new video.
COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Well Done!
'Guns' (Gov-Guns) don't make sh*t.
THEFT is a zero-sum game because THEFT doesn't make sh*t.
The socialist zero-sum wealth ideology is but a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Why College Students Prefer Socialism—and Why They're Wrong
You already said they're college students *and* they prefer socialism. What more explanation is needed? If they thought they were right and loved socialism, they'd be Paul Krugman and if they actually were right, they wouldn't prefer socialism, like a real economist.
Krugman isn't a socialist.
Other failed leftwing ideas that haven't really been tried:
Diversity
Open borders
Multiculturalism
Green energy
Gun control
Unions
Progressive income tax
Public schools
Diversity has been good for business and culture. Same with Multiculturalism.
Open borders worked great till they were eliminated by the racist laws of the late 1800s.
Green energy initiatives dramatically lowered the carbon emissions of our energy sector while lowering the cost of wind and solar. Battery technology has also improved.
Gun control has not been tried in the US, but our peer countries with gun control have a much lower homicide rate.
The rise of unions ushered in the rise of the middle class.
Tax loopholes meant we never had a true progressive income tax.
Public education bought literacy to the masses.
One claims those failed only if your goal is dirty air, more stupidly rich fucks, illiterate poor people, and a lame monolithic white culture.
Walz +6
Its been so GREAT....
- the rich have just gotten richer
- the poor have just gotten poorer
- the racism, sexism and nationalism exploded
- the competency of education is non-existent
One claims those are successes only if your goal is another [Na]tional So[zi]alist collapse.
- Oh +energy is seeing scarcity; something never seen in the USA before.
Scarcity is one of the few things democrats create. Along with dependence, bigotry, ignorance, and squalor. One only need look as far the nearest large democrat city to see that.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Really, what a shallow, facile reading of history.
Good grief.
I can’t help but think that Molly (Tony) would find a savage curb stomping educational.
So tell me about ‘diversity’ in China, Tainanmen Tony.
"Diversity has been good for business and culture. Same with Multiculturalism."
The main study cited for this like 1000 times has been that single McKenzie study that has been thoroughly torn apart for the confounding variable issue. There is no data that diversity improves a business.
You can make the culture argument, but I would say go walk as a tourist in Paris, London, or Munich and tell me how improved the culture is there by the unchecked diversity and multiculturalism. Its starting to look not very pretty
The only one of those three cities I have been to is Paris, and yes, the culture is MUCH improved by the massive numbers of people there who aren't French Catholics. I had fears that the people there would be anti-Semitic, anti-American, and hostile to folks like me who spoke no French. People who had visited there decades ago gave me those warnings.
But the opposite was true. I hung out a lot with French Jews, mostly whose families immigrated from North Africa after WW2. It is the only city outside of the US, Canada, and Israel where I saw many Jewish men wearing yarmulkes. I watched the Bastille Day fireworks from the shadow of the Eiffel Tower and they were the best fireworks display I have ever seen -- and I have seen the fireworks along the East and Hudson Rivers in NYC, the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, and the National Mall in Washington. The crowd was as pleasant and as ethnically diverse as in NYC. More people spoke English than French. I had pleasant conversations with hijab-wearing dark-skinned women -- in English.
And the best restaurant meal I have ever had in my life was in a kosher Indian restaurant in Paris.
Paris reminded me of NYC, which is the greatest city in the world BECAUSE of multiculturalism.
Students don’t know anything . That’s why they are still in school.
Apparently, the same could be said about their professors.
To be fair, the professors are ALSO still in school. Technically.
We really need some good old fashioned McCarthyism to straighten them out.
Or, we could just stop all federal funding and let the colleges compete on the merit of their scholarship.
For both quality students, and funding.
Why do (some) college students like socialism?
1. (Some) college students are child-idiots. They are the result of our continuing extension of childhood, and more pandered--and entitled--than other young people. BTW, the only appropriate setting for some type of socialism is within a family, and especially when kids are young.
2. US academia is the de facto home of "intellectual" socialism, including devout Marxists. This includes both the philosophy and the economic system, especially at state universities, where everyone is a government employee and all property belongs to the state. Students brainwashed in that environment are bound to think socialism is cool.
3. Young people will say and do whatever annoys their parents and elders. This might be the dominant motivation for some. And also why many cultures sent teens and young adults away.
Familiarity Breeds Contempt. Yes, the "dominant motivation" for the weakest minds.
If only they could learn one simple truth: Socialism is the ELITES' Paradise.
I have been a professor for over three decades. I have never met a Marxist professor. I have met one anarchist professor.
The people who say academia is full of Marxists are as stupid as the people who claim Norway, Denmark, and Sweden are socialist. Stossel got this right!
Gee, Charlie, I can only assume you teach at West Point, are an idiot, or a liar. Unless you want to claim that the polls taken by private, public, and government, including the BLS, get responses of up to 20 % in some humanities disciplines of professors who call themselves Marxists.
Fuck off.
He makes a up lot of shit. Although he does hold a PhD demo Harvard in remedial math. So maybe he teaches that as an assistant professor at some shithole community college.
" I have never met a Marxist professor. "
If that's true (almost certainly is not), its only because its not in fashion to always say "im a marxist" similar to how someone who is a Christian and prefers America first probably doesn't go around saying "Im a christian nationalist".
Coworkers daughter doing a PHD in "philosophy" and we have all heard the schlock she goes on about, and its never directly citing or studying Marx...just all the people that repackaged his many times failed ideas over the years.
Its pretty clear you are in academia. These people would be very happy to label someone a Nazi for flying their countries flag and not being for open borders, but you could have a college prof Stalin apologist, literally pushing for every tenant of Marxism that has been rehashed 1000 times, but they didnt put the Communist Manifesto on the syllabus so "well I mean the guy isnt a Marxist!" Thats why you havent met one, you guys are in the same shit stained bubble and you think the 50 various shades of diarrhea are somehow unique and not all just more poop.
"Why do (some) college students like socialism?
1. (Some) college students are child-idiots. They are the result of our continuing extension of childhood"
Add to that many are poor, the world is big and scary, and they have a college prof in their ear (and media, and entertainment) telling them the world is scary and unfair and the only way forward is the socialist revolution. They are dumb children who have been indoctrinated, and are currently in a further-indoctrination factory where capitalism bad and more socialism is the answer to every problem.
Most of them never stood a chance
You have obviously never tried to teach undergraduate students. Indoctrination? It is hard enough getting them to show up to class to pay attention to any material. At most college campuses, most students are mainly into partying, drinking, sports, and sex. Not necessarily in that order.
"In a free market, the only way entrepreneurs can get rich is by creating new wealth."
Bullshit. Many rich people make money off the stock market, which is in no way them creating new wealth.
This post is a defense of the long discarded trickle down economics.
LOL... The ability to buy public stock was initiated by your tribe insisting private was hogging all the money.
There is only one denominator in leftards whiny miserable brain.
How to funnel someone else's wealth into their own GREEDY pocket without having to *earn* it.
Even when trying to funnel that money from their own benefactors.
You leftards are all dog-eat-dog gangsters and belong in prison.
Too dumb to LEARN their dog-eat-dog world is literally a reflection of their own beliefs.
Walz +10
He broke the meter……. AGAIN!
I’m also bookmarking that one.
Tony, that was one of the most hilarious, batshit stupid things you’ve ever said. Which is saying a lot.
A LOT.
Typical. Marxists never have understood savings and investment and where real wealth comes from.
Investing time/$ in anything anyone else might enjoy/buy runs counter to their "it's all about me" consume/demand-only mindset.
Yeah right they do nothing, except direct capital to those who best use it. What are you, eleven?
The stock market is how we give start-up money to smart poor people so they can make stuff we want and become smart rich people. What part of that is a problem for you? Do you think we should keep those smart-poor people in their place? Are they too uppity for you? Or do you think they should rely on elves to make their products instead of investing in factories and stores?
Starting a company takes money. It's also very risky. How do you propose those smart-poor people start their companies without a stock market?
This is true only for an IPO. After that the money that is "invested" does not go to the company. And many IPOs are for the owners to cash out, not to provide capital to the company.
You can just taste the envy dripping from your moronic posts.
Stock markets are a way for the masses to share in the wealth of the economy.
All the "money" in the stock market comes from people buying shares from other people. The stock market is a pyramid scheme. There is no actual money there. It is all on paper.
LOLWUT?
Yeah……. Publicly traded stock is how a lot of companies raise capital to expand and grow.
You really are incredibly dumb.
Walz +12
More like 'Purposefully Dishonest '.
And the sale of shares allows people to invest in other companies.
Both you and the MAGA idiots think that the economy is zero sum game. The MAGA idiots think that immigrants unfairly take from the whiny entitled White losers when in fact immigrants improve the economy by working hard. And you don't understand that the profits from the increase in the value of businesses get invested in more businesses.
Stock market investors are not (typically) entrepreneurs. But having an open, voluntary stock market enables non-entrepreneurs to invest their own savings and earn significantly higher rates of return than they would get by buying a CD or loaning the government some money (by buying Treasury notes or bills).
The stock market (and the self-centered efforts of entrepreneurs and capitalists) has enabled tens of millions of regular middle-class working people to build wealth for retirement, travel, toys, and second homes.
"has enabled tens of millions of regular middle-class working people to build wealth for retirement"
I am one of those tens of millions. I had basically nothing when I started my career decades ago. I will be able to retire and continue to live a good life.
The problem isn't with the stock market or capitalism, it is that we haven't expanded the benefits of capitalism to the entire population!
You do not understand how stock markets work.
Are you and Tony really this fucking stupid? Or is it some kind of performance art?
Same old-same old from Stossel. Kids say they want socialism like Denmark and Stossel says no they want Stalinist Russia. Again talking cross point. Why doesn't Stossel just say what he doesn't like about Denmark's economic system. Because that what is being proposed. No one advocating for Stalinist Russia's economy so arguing against it is stupid.
What is keeping you from moving to Denmark?
Surely it must be easier to just MOVE than change an entire nation.
Maybe the Danes have an IQ requirement.
Some of those countries don’t take troublemaking layabouts.
"Because that what is being proposed." No. It's not. You're obfuscating again.
Kids say they want socialism like Denmark and Stossel
says no they want Stalinist Russiapoints out that Denmark is not socialist.FTFY
Why doesn't Stossel just say what he doesn't like about Denmark's economic system. Because that what is being proposed.
No, it isn't. Socialists love to say they want something like Denmark, but when you suggest lowering corporate taxes, getting rid of minimum wages, or lowering barriers of entry to markets, like in Denmark, suddenly they don't want to be anything like Denmark.
You are doing exactly what I am suggesting that Stossel do and take the argument to an example country that people can agree upon. Denmark has a capitalist system but it also has strong social safety nets. Is Stossel willing to trade lower corporate taxes for a universal healthcare system? Let us have the argument on the same playing field.
Trade 'Guns' of THEFT for 'Guns' that defend Liberty & ensure Justice for all?
Hmmmmmmmm... /s
That would be the difference between a CRIMINAL vs NON-CRIMINAL mind.
Speaking of which ... There is already a 'universal healthcare system'.
It's in that socialist utopia called PRISON - now go get it where it belongs.
Is Stossel willing to trade lower corporate taxes for a universal healthcare system?
I bet he’s willing to discuss it.
Are AOC or Mamdani willing to discuss lower corporate taxes along with universal healthcare? My experience is “Oh Hell no.”
Mamdani has openly said he wants to seize the means of production, have government-owned grocery stores, and institute price caps on various things. Is that Denmark-style “socialism,” or is that leaning more Soviet?
And why did the prime minister of Denmark request that Bernie stop calling them socialists?
Stossel will talk to just about anyone. And he is one of the most reasonable debaters I’ve ever seen.
Mexico has universal health care despite generally low taxes.
They have oil income too. And it’s still a blighted shithole.
So why are Mexican immigrants trying so hard to get-in/stay here?
Again...
What is keeping you from moving to Mexico?
Surely it must be easier to just MOVE than change an entire nation.
Unless the root motivation is to 'conquer and consume' the wealth of the USA then move-on to the next victims greener-pasture? STEAL it all with criminal-minds and Gov - 'Guns' then when it becomes a pit-of-despair run-away and do it again.
Socialism isn't hard to figure-out without all the Socialists BS indoctrination confusing common-sense.
...because; in reality - 'Guns' (Gov-Guns) don't make sh*t.
They never have and they never will. It's as simple as that.
Every-time people try using 'Government' ('Guns') as their 3rd party THEFT agency everything turns to sh*t because crime is unsustainable. (dog-eat-dog)
and yet we all understand no one wants to have their gall bladder out in Mexico.
Funny that
Wrong. Mexico has a big medical tourism sector, catering to Americans who want high quality healthcare at much lower prices than one spends in the US.
No, they want Marxism. Just like you and your fellow travelers here.
Thanks to the Bush and Trump tax scams, corporate taxes in the US aren't much higher than in the US. But Denmark has much higher personal income taxes and a national sales tax. It also has budget surpluses while the US has been borrowing and printing money to pay its bills since the second Bush Administration. That is an insidious form of taxation. Denmark is spending a lot more on defense today, possibly to defend against Trump's likely invasion of Greenland.
Denmark only has about 6 million people, and largely has their national defense covered by us. They also have significant oil revenues. So as usual, you’re making a bad comparison.
From the USSR to Nazi-Germany to Venezuela now Denmark.
What-ever "on the path to despair" nation it takes too.....
*MAKE-EXCUSES* to STEAL from those icky people.
Is it really any mystery 70%+ of the prison population registers as [D]?
re "Denmark's economic system [is] what is being proposed."
No, it's not. It's not even close. What stooges like Sanders and AOC are advocating for, on the other hand, is quite similar to Stalinist centralized economies.
Can you please justify that comment? Where have Sanders, AOC or any others advocated central control of the economy? Right now the biggest advocate for central control seems to be the President.
Seriously? You're gonna try to defend Bernie "who needs 23 choices of deoderant" Sanders? Have you looked at any of their policy proposals? Or their party's economic platform? It's chock full of government controls on wages, prices, productions limitations and other interferences not found in Denmark.
And no, Trump's no icon of free-market thinking either. Take off your partisan blinders and pay attention. Trump's not the topic of discussion. College students and people like Sanders and AOC falsely saying that "Denmark is socialist" are the topic of discussion.
He can’t say anything without raving about Trump.
If anything it is Trump who is pushing centralized control of the economy. Mussolini rather than Stalin.
Oh wow, a conversation about college students and socialism resulted in "Trumps a fascist". How...usual.
You dont know a Marxist prof though, right Charlie?
Still cant get you dorks to understand that Fascism isn't some polar opposite of Socialism, they are just brothers with different hair color.
I am not the dork. I am equally opposed to Stalinism and Mussoliniism.
You, however, excuse Trump, who is remarkably like Mussolini. However, either Attlee nor Ben-Gurion, the only really successful Socialist leaders in history, were anything like Mussolini. You don't understand that, either.
Denmark isn't socialist.
Ooohhhhh….. now do Venezuela!
The socialists already 'conquered and consumed' that one.
"Because that what is being proposed. No one advocating for Stalinist Russia's economy so arguing against it is stupid."
Mamdani just proposed govt run grocery stores (bread lines) and govt fully subsidized (taken over) mass transit to great fanfare of streamers like Hasan Piker who openly advocates for Russia/China style communism and is the most popular political streamer in the world with tons of viewers.
Almost the entire mass transit system in NYC (subways and buses) was taken over by New York City in 1940, by a Republican Mayor. The Long Island Rail Road's commuter trains were taken over by a Republican Governor in 1965. The same Republican Governor took over the Penn Central's commuter trains from north of the city in 1972. The final significant privately operated transportation in NYC was the seven express bus lines; they were taken over by a Republican Governor in 2006 with the enthusiastic support of a Republican Mayor. There are still some privately operated commuter bus lines from west of the Hudson, and Westchester County still contracts out its own bus service to a private operator, but neither New York City nor New York State has anything to do with those operations.
Making buses free isn't a takeover; the government has been owning and operating them for 85 years. I have been a loud opponent of free buses; we need much better service much more than zero fares.
And FWIW, I have been also an outspoken opponent of Mamdani's stupid idea to have the government run grocery stores.
Communism and utopianism had failed in the past because of these system lack incentive. The true believer work hard but too many join and put in little or no effort. That could all change with AI if as Elon Musk suggests and work becomes optional. How is the equation changed when only a minority of the population, maybe a small minority, is all that is needed for the workforce?
Greater productivity and wealth, and more leisure time is what happens. Got a problem with that?
Great productivity usually equal less workers needed. My problem is with people who insist that people have jobs when there are no job for many people. This will happen when AI starts taking over.
What are you talking about.
Immigration is needed because there is TOO MANY jobs. /s
And $20/hr 'Gun' forehead price-tags are needed to keep-out too many 'poor' jobs. /s
You're just chasing your tail in an effort to find any *excuse* to STEAL.
They said the same thing about every previous technology revolution.
Look, Look ... Another delusional-land *excuse* to STEAL from those 'icky' people.
You've got a long ways to go from 40hrs+/week to 0.
Corey Doctorow and many others have written about what a post-scarcity economy might look like. First off, it's still science fiction and a long, long way off. AI alone is not going to "make work optional". You also need near-infinite fre energy and universally accessible matter conversion. Second, the serious thinkers reject Star Trek-like utopian conclusions. Such outcomes fly in the face of everything we know about human nature.
Right now AI is in a position to threaten a large number of jobs. The question is what happens to those people who now have those jobs. When I was a kid my friend and classmates had father that worked for the local factory. That factory is closed and the workers kids need to get job elsewhere. So what happens now to a kid whose father works in information management for a large firm? His father job may well be taken over by AI. We are already hearing that AI is taking entry level job for new college graduates. We are not talking post scarcity of resources, but rather post scarcity of jobs.
"AI is in a position to threaten a large number"
So did water power, steam power, electricity, and computers.
You realize you've just exactly recreated the argument used by the Luddites, right? If your position were ever to take hold, it would permanently freeze technology at the current state. Every improvement disrupts the status quo. Change is inherent to growth. Good lord, have you never read Schumpeter?
Bingo.
By the way, don't think we missed your attempt to move the goal posts from "AI will make work optional" to "this particular job might become obsolete". The horseless carriage put a lot of buggy-whip factories out of business, too.
Exactly. In a post-scarcity economy, no one is joining Star Fleet so mini tyrants likes Capt. James T. Kirk can boss them around 24/7. They are instead joining the queue to get their own free holodeck and replicators, and then going on perpetual vacation.
True. The federation economy really didn’t make much sense. I don’t think Roddenberry had a decent grasp of economics.
"Second, the serious thinkers reject Star Trek-like utopian conclusions. Such outcomes fly in the face of everything we know about human nature."
Mostly that human nature is individuals are selfish and will try to maximize their own personal benefit / work input.
Capitalism harnesses this trait, socialism pretends it doesn't exist. It is the primary reason one works well and the other not at all.
I love the pro-socialist Trek nerds who think the massive energy requirement needed to feed them and air condition their living space, and the resources needed to power a futuristic 3D printer than could make anything, would somehow naturally appear without having to steal said energy (work) while also arguing that work is tyranny and they would prefer to spend their time drinking wine / painting / leisure, and that society would have a foundation sturdier than a house of cards on sand.
"massive energy requirement needed to feed them"
FWIW, electric utilities are a rare example of government being able to provide something to consumers at lower cost than the private sector: Most have lower rates than investor-owned utilities.
The true believers in socialism join the government so they can get in on that sweet grift of making sure everyone else is equal.
Why do Stossel's articles seem so different from the other articles on Reason?
Socialism guru Noam Chomsky tells students that. He says the Soviet Union "was about as remote from socialism as you could imagine."
I doubt the old shit is lecturing anybody at his age. Perhaps that’s what he has posted for him on social media, which may count as a college lecture at MIT nowadays.
No, they prefer socialism because they think they get more than they deserve. They see themselves as privileged and see no way to shuck off that privilege by their individual action.
MAGA trolls hate history, but there are lessons to learn. Look at the only two examples of socialism that actually worked.
The UK went socialist with the 1945 election and had a booming economy for most of the next three decades. The UK had been mostly run by Conservatives for over two decades, and it handled the Great Depression very badly. Its response to Herbert Hoover's trade was was to escalate, worsening the Depression, and the fact that Winston Churchill was totally opposed to trade wars didn't help the Conservatives. Unlike leftists on the Continent after the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact, Attlee and Labour were every bit as hostile to the Nazis as the Conservatives and the role of Attlee and other Labour Ministers in the wartime coalition government convinced voters that the left would be responsible non-communist leaders -- and they were right. It was Attlee and Bevin who got the UK to be a founding member of NATO and it was Attlee and Bevin who got the UK nuclear weapons. (Churchill was stunned when he returned as PM in 1951 that under the Labour government, a nuclear weapon was close to being ready for testing; he had criticized the Labour government for NOT pushing independent nuclear weapons. Attlee did not contest the allegation; he put country before party and that contributed to his narrow election defeat in which more votes were cast for Labour MP candidates than Conservative MP candidates.) Attlee's government delayed removing wartime economic controls in order to slowly wean the UK off a wartime economy and the next decades were times of great growth and prosperity for the UK -- under socialism.
The other success was Israel. The country barely survived its first year, having been invaded by five (six if you count Saudi Arabia) neighboring genocidal Arab countries. It got no support from anywhere other than the newly communist Czechoslovakia, but the arrangements for munitions deliveries had been made by the non-communist Jan Masaryk. The communists would push him out of a window shortly thereafter, but for reasons that have been never been adequately explained, Stalin, Beria, and Gottwald honored the agreements and sent massive amounts of military supplies to the new Zionist state. Ben-Gurion was no communist but a dedicated Democratic socialist, and it took many decades for a strong private sector economy to develop in Israel. Yet the socialist economy was strong enough to defend Israel in four wars of attempted genocide, and feed and housed about a million and a half immigrants by the mid 1970s, mostly fleeing for their lives with nothing but what they could carry. A free-market economy would have resulted in mass starvation.
Neither Israel nor the UK is socialist today.