One of the striking things about America's recent political environment has been the increasingly warm embrace of socialism, particularly by younger generations. At the same time, as the title of a recent New York Post editorial put it, "Socialism's millennial fans don't even know what it is." And the text makes the point more strongly: "Millenials—ignorant of socialism's appalling economic and human-rights history—increasingly embrace socialism and its naively unrealistic prescriptions."

The confusion about socialism derives in part from its traditional definition of government ownership of the means of production. Defenders claim they don't want government in charge everywhere—not complete, or "real" socialism—which gives them plausible deniability against accusations they are socialists. But they do want selective socialism in areas where they anticipate benefiting at the expense of others as recipients or as arbiters of what "society wants" and will impose on citizens.

Further, they generally want the government to determine how nominal resource owners are to use them rather than direct government ownership. Of course, that means their preferred system is better described not as socialism but as fascism, or as Sheldon Richman summarized it, "socialism with a capitalist veneer." Yet those adamant in their denials of being socialist never instead claim to be fascist because that is a "bad word" they only want to be applied to opponents.