Four in 10 Americans prefer socialism to capitalism, poll finds
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the Puerto Rican Day parade in New York on Sunday. Ocasio-Cortez is an avowed democratic socialist.
Jose Alvarado Jr/Reuters
That four in 10 respondents supported socialism suggests the US might be shaking off decades of stigma – in keeping with the rising prominence of avowedly democratic socialist politicians, such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez .
According to the survey from Axios on HBO, respondents had varying views on what comprised a socialist political system. Seventy-six percent of respondents agreed that universal healthcare was a hallmark of socialism. Seventy-two percent agreed that tuition-free education was also a characteristic of socialism, and 68% thought a living wage was part of a socialist system.
Large numbers of respondents also agreed that socialism was linked to several unfavorable political characteristics. Fifty-seven percent agreed that “state-controlled media and communication” were among the things constituting socialism, and 49% agreed it was a “system dependent on dictatorship”.
However, the poll showed a gender divide when it comes to US attitudes to socialism.
Although 55% of women in the 18-54 age group said they would prefer living in a socialist country, “a majority of men prefer to live in a capitalist country”, Axios noted.
“It’s been a truth of American politics for decades that women are to the left of men, and I think that’s playing out in this poll,” said Felix Salmon of Axios.
Donald Trump has frequently railed against socialism as he gears up to bid for a second term. In April he told a rally in Wisconsin that America “will never be a socialist country”.
Tags
Who is online
58 visitors
I'm not sure what this means, considering the abyssal ignorance of most Americans of what "socialism" actually is... but one conclusion seems safe: the word "socialism" is no longer taboo.
It would be 6 or 8 out of 10 if people really understood the reality. Capitalism only works with oversight and some measure of control.
The economic crash under Republicans in 2008 was the culmination of unbridled, unchecked capitalistic greed run amok over the American people.
I am not against capitalism or profit, but without ethical rules to protect consumers, without maintaining a level of job creation in America, and without a system of checks and balances on the level of greed overtaking the well being of our country, then capitalism serves no one but the greedy few at the top.
Like all pyramid schemes it came crashing down and all these greedy few want is to keep the hamster wheel going on their corrupt practices and price fixing like we see from Big Pharma.
The realization is slow in coming but it is dawning on many of those at the top that eventually they will price their goods, products and services out of the reach of too many people that will then cause them to crash and burn leaving them with nothing.
The old saying "you can't get blood from a turnip" applies, corporations eventually will not be able to squeeze the 98% of us to get anything from us because they are the ones who squeezed Americans dry.
that is true enough...
it is also true that socialism only works with much bigger federal govt and the use of force, as not many capitalists will give up the product of their labor to "the collective" without a huge fight. however in our country there will be no fight. the supreme court will always uphold the notion of personal ownership of one's business and property. meaning, "the collective" can not have our stuff and the USA will never be a socialist country.
cheers
No
yes
do you think with the current number of federal employees the feds can keep the states and capitalists with guns inline when they refuse to play the socialist games? not a chance.
a whole new bureaucracy and federal police force must be set up to make sure us capitalist pigs give our property to the collective on time and to keep us from just killing the socialists instead. they are gonna need them because we will fight to the death over this issue. there will be civil war. truth be told... my piss ant little city would swallow 1000 socialist enforcers in a day or two no problem. and there are over 20,000 cities... you do the math.
enacting socialism in this country would require the federal government to double in size just to pretend to keep us in check. but there is no way they would ever actually keep us in check = we will win that war easy.
besides all that, our military will oust the admin who tries to flip our country socialist without an amendment to the constitution first.. and there is no way the states will pass that amendment, not enough states are run by people that stupid.
cheers
You're explaining that capitalism needs Big Government.
The USA is not going to 'flip' to socialism. If the USA ever has a system wherein the people have control over the productive resources of the economy (as opposed to a minority holding control) it will be a result of a long evolution and will be because the people (and our infrastructure) have culturally evolved to the point where this is the kind of system they both desire and can competently manage.
Then again, it depends on what you mean by 'socialist' because unless someone defines their meaning, that word can mean anything from brutal authoritarian rule to a purely egalitarian Nirvana fantasy. Given you stated @2.1: "socialism only works with much bigger federal govt and the use of force" it would appear that you think socialism is basically the system of the former USSR or possibly the transitional stage during an economic coup in which an authoritarian ruler (or anarchic forces operating in a national revolution) expropriates private property, etc. If so, neither is going to happen in the USA in our lifetimes and using 'socialism' to describe these scenarios renders any such discussion confused and pointless.
Far too many including yourself utilize outmoded definitions instead of going to the source. The Socialist International is the parent organization for socialist movements around the world.
they offer a more expansive definition to reflect what is actually happening globally
Socialist International
“Democratic socialism today is based on the same values on which it was founded. But they must be formulated critically, both assimilating past experience and looking ahead to the future. For instance, experience has shown that while nationalisation in some circumstances may be necessary, it is not by itself a sovereign remedy for social ills. Likewise, economic growth can often be destructive and divisive, especially where private interests evade their social and ecological responsibility. Neither private nor State ownership by themselves guarantee either economic efficiency or social justice.
The democratic socialist movement continues to advocate both socialisation and public property within the framework of a mixed economy. It is clear that the internationalisation of the economy and the global technological revolution make democratic control more important than ever. But social control of the economy is a goal that can be achieved through a wide range of economic means according to time and place, including:
- democratic, participative and decentralised production policies; public supervision of investment; protection of the public and social interest; and socialisation of the costs and benefits of economic change;
- worker participation and joint decision-making at company and workplace level as well as union involvement in the determination of national economic policy;
- self-managed cooperatives of workers and farmers;
- public enterprises, with democratic forms of control and decision-making where this is necessary to enable governments to realise social and economic priorities;
- democratisation of the institutions of the world financial and economic system to allow full participation by all countries;
- international control and monitoring of the activities of transnational corporations, including cross-frontier trade union rights within such corporations.
61. There is no single or fixed model for economic democracy and there is room for bold experimentation in different countries. But the underlying principle is clear - not simply formal, legal control by the State, but substantial involvement by workers themselves and by their communities in economic decision-making. This principle must apply both nationally and internationally.”
You should read what you copy & pasted.
What point do you wish to make other than Democratic Socialism is complex and includes transitional factors?
I’ve read it many times. It clearly state that there is no single definition of a socialist government
but what ALL forms of socialism including the Democratic Socialism of Europe or Bernie eat alone is FORCED STATIST COLLECTIVISM
that equates to the authoritarianism Bernie and other Democrats say they are running against
I agree. You might have noticed that this is why I encourage people to not simply use the term 'socialism' but to qualify what they actually mean. The word 'socialism' unqualified is almost meaningless. That established, did someone claim that socialism has one specific definition; one specific architecture or dynamic? You seem to be addressing a claim that was not made.
And where did you get that idea? A powerful state imposing itself (authoritarian statism) on the people (forcing them to comply) is the opposite of distributed economic control.
Look up social democracy. There you will find most of the policies of Bernie, et. al. What you seem to have in your mind is authoritarian rule - a powerful state controlling the people. Calling that socialism just misses the point so badly it is both sad and funny.
not sure if anyone on this site made the claim but ummmm.... dictionaries have made that claim.
read more here...
so yeah, basically socialists take other peoples property, in one way or another, and gives it all to "the community" as a whole.
its not rocket science
Yet you insist on getting it wrong.
nothing wrong about what I said...
no matter what version of socialism anyone talks about it boils down to theft from others.
ya know what six out of ten people in this country think about socialist thieves?
luckily, our constitution recognizes the concepts of personal liberty and personal property and personal ownership of the results of one's labor.... leaving the socialist shit out of luck.
Some have invented their own definition of socialism and nobody, not Merriam or Webster, not even Karl Marx himself would be able to convince them otherwise. At some point you have to just chalk them up as unteachable and move on. Ignorance is curable with education, but you can't fix stupid.
Too many people seem stubbornly determined to be wrong.
Good lord the ignorance of those comments shows no bounds
The USA will only become a socialist country by violent revolution that also overturns the entire US Constitution. We who support capitalism and live by it will use every peaceful, passive, legal, and obstructing technique to block it to the extent that violent revolution is the only way socialism can impose itself upon us and even then, we’d replicate the Kulaks of Ukraine and salt our fields, burn our factories, and bury every personal effect that could be taken from us by a collective. It would be better to burn the country and it’s farms and cities to the ground than let it be taken by the socialists.
Bravo!!
That is extremely unlikely.
We are not 19th century Europe. Get a grip.
If our economic system ever becomes something that qualifies as socialism (not the emotionally charged pejorative that you have in mind) it is more likely that it is a result of gradual evolution and almost certainly because the people are culturally competent to take on the responsibilities and, importantly, they desire to do so.
Which is why only by overthrowing the US Constitution can socialism ever be imposed upon us. And we who support capitalism, private property rights, individuals land ownership rights, rights as shareholders, intend to defend and preserve what system we have now come what may.
You can talk tough with complete safety because none of your concerns will occur within our lifetimes, if ever. You might as well be bragging about how you will pilot your jet into the maw of an alien invader mother ship and martyr yourself to save the planet. Give us a break.
Worry about things that are likely, not nightmares resulting from an utter misunderstanding of the dynamics at play in the USA.
Baen Books is an SF publisher specialized in the sub-genre "military science fiction". Some of their writers were leaders of the " Sad Puppies " movement that tried to pack the Hugo Award with John Campbell fiction.
I happen to like military SF. The leader of the second year's campaign, Brad Torgerson , wrote the excellent The Chaplain's War , combining shoot-em-up action and theological debate - good stuff!
Baen sponsors a forum called Baen's Bar . It is deeply red (or was - I was kicked off a couple years ago when I dared write about their Sad Puppies mess.) The conversations there were like NT's conservatives in their closed [ Fox&Friends ] loops... but even wackier.
One of Baen's stars is a guy named John Ringo . I read some of his earlier stuff, but it gradually got too wacky to digest. I don't remember which of his books had the scene that finally made me think, "Hey! Why are you rotting your brain with this?" In that scene, a bunch of "heroic yahoos" loaded a .50 caliber machine gun in the bed of a pickup, to fight off alien invaders.
Yup. Fifty cal in a pickup, against aliens in flying saucers.
All the guys on Baen's Bar are of course nutzoid second-amendment-solution types. [ deleted ]
That's not the narrative though.
It's always about the Minority that means the most.....In Liberal Land anyway.
Get with the program...… Gaul !
It's time trumpets did get with the program and quits destroying America
Rome is burning where pray tell ?
they can take their socialist asses to venezuela any time they like.
true enough... no one alive today will see the usa become a socialist nation.
cheers
Forty percent is about the size of Trump’s support.
How about exiling them?
nah this country does not support socialists and never will. maybe after they start teaching marxism at west point... LOL till then we will be keeping this country, if the socialist don't like it? they can simply fuk off.
so ya say... which means nothing.
"Question 15
As you may have heard, Donald Trump has decided to run for re-election. Please just give me your best guess, do you think he will win the presidential election in 2020, or do you think he will lose?
Base: Respondents who are registered to vote
Will win 55%
Will lose 41%
Americans, particularly the younger generations, are gradually being "awoke" to the evils of "income inequality". Some of us have been talking about it years, but it is only in the Trump era that the message has begun to sink in. I think that within the next decade or so we will see the beginning of some laws and programs that will help to spread the wealth. It is going to take time, but by the same token once the change happens we wont be going back to a "gilded age".
You're an optimist.
The alternative is that the right will transform the republic into a kleptocratic oligarchy. Inequality won't matter.
Totalitarianism ideology is always proposing that it will end income inequality.. but of course it never does and never will.
yes, capitalism also produces inequality, but offers greater income mobility and the data reflects that fact
High Turnover Among America’s Rich
By Chelsea German
Your odds of “making it to the top” might be better than you think, although it’s tough to stay on top once you get there.
According to research from Cornell University, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives. Over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners (i.e.: people making at minimum $332,000 per annum) for at least one year.
How is this possible? Simple: the rate of turnover in these groups is extremely high.
Just how high? Some 94 percent of Americans who reach “top 1 percent” income status will enjoy it for only a single year. Approximately 99 percent will lose their “top 1 percent” status within a decade.
Now consider the top 400 U.S. income-earners—a far more exclusive club than the top 1 percent. Between 1992 and 2013 , 72 percent of the top 400 retained that title for no more than a year. Over 97 percent retained it for no more than a decade.
The Forbes 400 lists the wealthiest Americans by total estimated net worth, regardless of their income during any given year. Over 71 percent of Forbes 400 listees and their heirs lost their top 400 status between 1982 and 2014.
While this is disappointing it does not come as a surprise to me. Being the most obese country it is also becoming the laziest country. Socialism appeals to the lazy.
Dean,
This country is obese because there is no portion control. We over eat. Not because of socialism.
Not that I am for socialism. But I like to be factual.
What does that even mean? So unrelated to the topic! And socialism is many things and comes in many forms, it isn't pure any more than capitalism it pure. There are degrees. Not to mention some people seem to be against 'socialism' unless it goes where they want it to go, farm subsidies, corporate bailouts, corporate elite regularly privatize the profits and socialize the costs to taxpayers. Instead of broad labels it is better to go directly to policies. Pick one and start there.
It means that I feel the people that favor Bernie's and AOC's democratic socialism are lazy. It is far easier to vote for free crap at the expense of the hard working successful than to work for it and earn it for oneself.
It means you can't actually pick a single point and argue it.
For clarity:
The above illustrates the most significant difference between the structure of socialism vs. capitalism (but does not get into details such as the intent or the dynamics).
If you look at what Sanders and AOC are advocating, it is not socialism (and not even Democratic Socialism in particular) but rather social democracy. (Social democracy is a form of capitalism featuring heightened statism.) They are advocating more statism — they believe government should play a bigger role and, in particular, should redistribute more wealth. And even the redistribution of wealth aspect needs to be unpacked since redistribution of wealth in itself is necessarily at the core of every government in civil societies (e.g. public schools). So one must look at the specific proposals of redistribution to determine the merits.
The only aspect of what they promote that correlates with socialism (yet this also works under capitalism) is their support for cooperative workplaces. If you know anything about this model, the workers are expressly not fat and lazy and are not getting 'free crap'. Note also that national distribution of 'free crap' takes place regardless of the economic system and almost exclusively under systems that have a capitalist economy (some have state capitalism ... like China). 'Free crap' from the government is not a defining characteristic of socialism (or capitalism), rather it is a defining characteristic of political statism.
This is the problem with our language —especially in the USA— people use terms such as 'socialism' and think they are making a point when in actuality the word is so overloaded as to be essentially meaningless unless one adds qualification to identify one's intended usage. Comments that net down to 'socialism is bad' connote nothing more than parroting a slogan.
Define "productive resources of the economy".
The means of production and distribution: includes factors such as land, facilities, equipment, tools, materials, capital, infrastructure. That which is required to provide the consumables (especially necessary consumables) of civil society.
Minority control over same is (in the USA, etc.) predominantly held by the private sector. In other nations (e.g. Venezuela) it is predominantly held by government officials. In all cases, minority control nets down to aristocracy.
Nicely stated.
So it seems you're really limiting your definition to an agrarian or manufacturing economy. The US has been a service-based economy for many years. Service-based businesses require none of those things except capital, and even then many start and prosper using self-generated cash flow.
I'm not sure the data actually supports that idea.
There are over 30 million small businesses in the US, each of which has some control over a piece of the means of production. There are another 15 million self-employed people, also owning some control. Of the massive US corporations, almost all are publicly traded, and owned by hundreds of millions of Americans through their IRAs, 401(k)s, pension funds, college funds, or general non-qualified investments. The Federal Reserve tells us that 52% of Americans own stocks.
Again, I don't think the numbers support this idea. "Aristocracy" is typically not a group numbering 15-50% of the population. The English aristocracy of the 18th century was about 20,000 people of a population of 5 million, or less than 1/2 of 1%.
I am not. It is really more about necessity and influence for civil society. The mode of production changes over time but the necessity and influence of factors will always be in place. Those who control those factors control the economy (as much as an economy can be controlled that is).
Infrastructure includes technological infrastructure which includes communication, transportation, artificial intelligence, etc. That which enables services to be developed and delivered is part of the MoP / MoD.
Public stock ownership is not control; it is indirect influence. Ultimately Apple, for example, will take whatever actions its executive team decides and as long as they continue to deliver solid shareholder value they will remain in control. ( And if they fail, others will replace them and exert their own minority control. )
The word 'aristocracy' was not used as an historical reference. I used the term for its English language semantics: the upper classes of society. Also, the percentages have nothing to do with my meaning. Aristocracy is equated to the minority that holds economic power. This I tried to make clear upfront @5.2.3:
Owners of a company control those factors.
Infrastructure includes technological infrastructure which includes communication, transportation, artificial intelligence, etc. That which enables services to be developed and delivered is part of the MoP / MoD.
The largest provider of communication services is ATT....which is owned by tens of millions of Americans.
That's like saying Jerry Jones has "indirect influence" over the Dallas Cowboys because he doesn't actually call the plays or decide where to throw the ball.
It's control. The shareholders are the ones who actually own everything and decide who runs their company.
And who, exactly, has the power to fire them? The shareholders. Who are in no way a minority.
You are (curiously) insisting that economic control is the same as indirect influence. Consumers have indirect influence over companies. Consumer influence is arguably greater than that of shareholders.
Very indirect. I cannot help but smile at your reference to AT&T being controlled by its shareholders. The direction of the company is set by the executive team at the approval of the board. The specific strategy and tactics is set by executive and upper management and executed by the balance of the enterprise with myriad decisions made at different levels of operations. I am sure I have AT&T somewhere in my portfolios. Maybe I should check with my adviser to see if I have missed a vote on the specific direction AT&T is taking with respect to service offerings for smart devices.
Precisely not. Minority, consolidated control most definitely exists. Jerry Jones exemplifies minority control. We were talking about distributed control. Your analogy is 180° wrong.
The shareholders typically elect the board members, not the members of the executive team and below. They also can vote on items put up to vote by the board such as major initiatives, executive pay, etc. They do not have direct power over the corporation and its decisions. The adjective 'indirect' really applies well here.
I understood exactly what he meant and agree with him that the slothful and lazy are the primary advocates of and would be beneficiaries of socialism.
Which definition of socialism do you have in mind now?
Then why are the fattest States with the highest rates of obesity all Red States full of supposedly capitalist loving Republicans?
Top 10 Fattest States:
1 Mississippi
2 West Virginia
3 Arkansas
4 Kentucky
5 Tennessee
6 Louisiana
7 Alabama
8 South Carolina
9 Oklahoma
10 Texas
Mississippi is number 1 at 37.3% adult obesity in 2016. So more than 1 out of 3 Mississippians is clinically obese.
Seems that whole bullshit concept of "liberals are lazy so they love socialism" kind of falls flat when looking at those numbers, or are Red States far more socialist than they'd like to admit? The numbers do show slightly more conservatives rely on entitlements than liberals.
" the survey finds virtually no difference in the share of conservatives (57%) , liberals (53%) or political moderates (53%) who have been assisted by at least one entitlement program ."
Except the poll doesn't say that.
In fact, the polling data says:
Online polls are not actually valid as predictors of populations at large, because as everyone knows the sample of people who complete online polls are not representative of the public at large.
That will certainly not stop people from misrepresenting the results in a headline, knowing that most people won't question it.
.
"Four in 10 Americans prefer socialism to capitalism, poll finds"
Six in 10.....don't want it.
I'll go with the "Six" as more important !
So what.
Insightful.
Now you are just being silly by pointing out the obvious as derived from these "well informed" polls.
Minority Rules /s.
LOL
Four In 10 Americans Prefer Socialism To Capitalism, Poll Finds
Interesting!
Interesting that 6 out of 10 Americans do not prefer Socialism to Capitalism!
(Of course probably something like 8 or 9 out of every 10 Americans really don't understand what Socialism is. :^)
99 out of 100 is more like it.
Wouldn't that make 4 in 10 Americans blithering idiots? I'll venture a guess that the answer to that is YES.