To the OP, I think you'll need to clarify a few points for us...as I feel that there are a few distinctions that are being overlooked.
You mentioned a couple phrases and terms, and in the way you worded them, appear to be linking them together, when it's more of a case that one overlaps the other in a few areas.
You mentioned:
this push to Socialism/Communism
liberal teachings of the University professors
liberal/socialist/communist agenda
...couple different conflations happening here so we'll just unpack them one at a time.
Which one is the push for? Communism or Socialism? They're two different economic ideologies. They share some overlap, but they're not synonymous with each other.
"Liberal", from the standpoint of its contemporary definition, simply means a system that combines aspects of civil liberties with aspects of social justice, and favors a mixed economy.
Many of the more granular aspects of "liberalism" (in a contemporary sense) have nothing to do with a person's position when it comes to which entity should maintain ownership over the means of the production.
For instance, a person's stance on issues like gay marriage, abortion, gun control, etc... have nothing to do with their position on private vs. collective vs. state ownership of industry.
When you say "this push", what exactly are you referring to? Any aspect of our current mixed economy that people see as some sort of "push toward state control" are aspects that have already been under state control for a long long time. For instance, on healthcare, switching from our fiat insurance-proxy model to a single payer model isn't a "push toward socialism/communism", it's simply changing an entity, that's under state control, to another form of state control.
-Medicaid was established in 1965
-Federal Licensing requirements for physicians were made into law in 1912, and several states had already had state licensing requirements for doctors going back to the mid-1800's.
For business in general...business licensing in the US first showed up in 1872.
So is it really a case where there's a push for
more state control? Or is the real objection that certain groups are pushing for a change to
how the state is controlling it?...in particular, changing it to be inclusive to ideas that people on the far-right want to omit for personal/religious reasons?
Now there are entities out there who are advocating for true socialism, but they're not of any quantifiable numbers. As big of a problem as Antifa is (and many in that camp truly are socialists or communists), in terms of a voter base, they're still a small number in comparison to a 330 million population and certainly not enough to actually influence any real policy.
...and even the ones in government who claim to advocate for it either A) don't know what it actually means (Like AOC), or B) are just using the 'pop-culture' definition of it (Like Bernie) to describe "What Denmark has"...which is actually a form of market economy known as the "Nordic Model" (
as Lars Rasmussen, Danish PM, had to come to Harvard and clarify for the over-zealous 22 year olds)
