Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Poll: Just 53% Favor Capitalism Over Socialism
Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.
Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.
Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.
There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.
The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism
It is interesting to compare the new results to an earlier survey in which 70% of Americans prefer a free-market economy. The fact that a "free-market economy" attracts substantially more support than "capitalism" may suggest some skepticism about whether capitalism in the United States today relies on free markets.
Other survey data supports that notion. Rather than seeing large corporations as committed to free markets, two-out-of-three Americans believe that big government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors.
Fifteen percent (15%) of Americans say they prefer a government-managed economy, similar to the 20% support for socialism. Just 14% believe the federal government would do a better job running auto companies, and even fewer believe government would do a better job running financial firms.
Most Americans today hold views that can generally be defined as populist while only seven percent (7%) share the elitist views of the Political Class.
66 Comments so far
Show AllI find it funny that most Americans say they're populist and only 7% say they share elitist views, yet most of them support the elitist corporate socialism that we call American Capitalism.
"Elitist corporate socialism" is often called "corporatism." And I do not believe that most Americans support the corporatist state or its politicians. The corporate media uses character attacks to remove any politicians from the mix that advocate anything other than corporatism and so the electorate is always stuck, at least at the presidential level, with choosing between two corporatists. And I believe most Americans even understand that if a non-corporatist were elected president in the foreseeable future, that individual would soon be removed from power, one way or another.
Yes!
If Americans didn't support corporatism, then there wouldn't be any. Many people may be against it, but that doesn't mean they don't support it. Buying at Wal Mart and voting in elitist candidates supports the system, whether they are against it or not.
And I don't think people are afraid of non-corporatist officials being removed by the system. If we ever elected one than Americans wouldn't be dumb enough at that point to let one be removed. I'm not sure, but I never heard anyone say we can't elect a real candidate because he'd get the boot. It's ultimately the people's choice. The system isn't absolute. American's are holding it up, anyway.
tcolon,
And the choices are? Americans have no choice in either.
As far as your second comment, you should read JFK and Unspeakable as well as The People's History of the United States.
They hate us because of our freedom! Right, and I have this bridge....
I don't know where you come from, but where I live, we have many other small places to shop at.
And as far as candidate choices go, we have plenty of other choices. DSA, Independent, Green, etc. The media props up the ones it likes, but we still, essentially, do not have to vote for them. I voted for Nader. If I have that choice, then so does everyone else. The choice is there, whether you're ignorant or don't take it, that's another question.
But God forbid I make some kind of optimistic statement on CD.
I repeat, what choices?
I am not ignorant, just realistic, rational and informed.
I also don't see the optomistic statement in your post. What was it?
They hate us because of our freedom! Right, and I have this bridge....
I kind of feel like you're both right.
Boycotting the single party system (Republicrat) is effective if more will do it. But the playing field is not level, and even if we could get an illiterate America to sit down and watch a substantial debate with real issues, the Single party (who makes election law) would never let somebody like Ralph Nader participate. Third party candidates now as it is, have to be able to leap over tall buildings just to get on the ballot in all 50 states.
It sounds to me like Random is trying to say we don't have any freedoms left; that they are all just an illusion. I tend to agree with him; however tcolon is right that a defeatist attitude will not further freedom. And perhaps ezeflyer's post is most telling. Clearly unchecked capitalism is like cancer. But USSR socialism is just as corrupt. We need something hybrid.
I advocate a strong FDR approach. Grab everyone in those tent cities, feed and clothe them, then give them a job building solar installations on every rooftop in the Southern States. This keeps the resource out of the hands of the uber-rich robber-baron (since no-one can monopolize or OPECize the Sun) and gets us off carbon. Government produced solar cells. Who cares if it isn't perfect? It gets us away from Wall Street Crooks. If we had plowed trillions into new solar cell technology, instead of dead-end bankers we wouldn't be in this mess.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
You forgot the Socialist Party, USA. www.sp-usa.org
In the Clinton days there was also a Labor Party-USA and a progressive party called "The New Party" which was actually winning some local elections. Both went defunct under the disarray of the Bush years - but looked hopeful for a while.
I supported both, for what good it did. I still have several pieces of leftie memorabilia from fundraising auctions that the Labor Party used to have at a sympathetic bar in downtown Pittsburgh. Joe Hill and and Zapatista posters and in early 2001 - a T-shirt from and event in Japan called "Global Peace Festival 2001"
There's also a Socialist Workers Party that regularly gets harassed by the Feds. While Nixon and his thugs were getting in trouble for Watergate, the SWP was the victim of even more outrageous crimes.
I agree, tcolon, with your first paragraph. Knowingly, or not -- and willingly, or not -- the vast majority of Americans "support" corporatism. Their consumer behavior, alone, backs-up your hypothesis. But, I'm convinced if you asked ten people on the street to define corporatism, you'd get at least eight different responses -- probably none correct.
As far as your second paragraph, it seems you missed the underlying meaning of kivals statement: "And I believe most Americans even understand that if a non-corporatist were elected president in the foreseeable future, that individual would soon be removed from power, one way or another." I don't think kivals alluded that the non-corporatist would be removed by "We, the People", but rather by other influences (key phrase: "...one way or another."). One only has to have an understanding of the John F. Kennedy presidency to understand the consequences of not playing along.
I hope this removes any ambiguity about what, I thought, kivals meant. At least that's how I interpreted it.
Peace to all...
end.corporate.personhood
In reference to my second statement, I didn't mean that the people would remove them from political office. I acknowledged that the state and corporatists would attempt to remove that person from power, but what I was saying was that it would be very difficult to do so. If we ever did elect a progressive candidate, it would be at a point where the people would be at a high level of understanding. At that point, it seems unlikely that they would let him/her be ousted by the system, especially since they'd know (at that point) what the system was doing.
A third question needed was "do you prefer a mix of capitalism and socialism?"
I totally agree, ezeflyer.
People also need to become educated on the true meanings of capitalism and socialism and why there needs to be a healthy balance of both for any society to prosper. Since reagan, the conservative/republican party has done a very good job of re-creating both. Socialism, like liberalism and democrat has been a dirty word for a long time.
Asking people if they support a mix of capitalism and socialism would be like asking if they support the current system while wearing a hiking boot on one foot, a a slipper on the other, and going swimming.
"Asking people if they support a mix of capitalism and socialism would be like asking if they support the current system while wearing a hiking boot on one foot, a a slipper on the other, and going swimming."
I guess most US people think we are too exceptional to copy successful democracies in other countries.
'A third question needed was "do you prefer a mix of capitalism and socialism?"'
Exactly, ezeflyer.
I have long seen this either/or question as a moot point, as neither can work - at least, not for the people. Capitalism/corporatism is showing it's dark side, so we don't need to go there. Socialism, while never really done without the manipulations of others, can't work, IMO. I like its stated goals, but I don't believe humans have evolved to where we can all be egalitarian and work for the common good. Ants can, humans can't. The Tragedy of the Commons is alive and well, as is greed.
I do, however, believe in a hybrid: Free enterprise with strict limits. You can start a business and make money, but you can't do so at the expense of others or your community. You can earn a bigger salary, but only if those at the bottom of the ladder earn enough to support themselves and their families with living wages. You can start a corporation, but only if the people of your state charter you to do so, with strict guidelines AND a time limit which you must apply to extend (as was the law when corporations were first allowed to form in the US) AND that said corporation benefits the public.
The notion that humans are outside the bounds of natural laws must end. Just as Nature imposes limits on everything, so to must we impose limits on our institutions.
It is interesting that the largest majority is given towards a mistrust of corporations and the politicians they own. This points to the fact that ordinary Americans are thinking along class lines. In other words, they are developing a class consciousness. Eventually people will be required to connect the dots as events in the real world push people to seek solutions to advance their class interests. It will then become clearer to them that socialism is a system that will serve their class interests while capitalism can only serve the interests of the corporations. Have no doubt, this will eventually happen because humans are programmed for survival and the growing threats to that survival will become painfully obvious as the capitalist myths are one by one discarded through real world experiences.
These are the same people that allow the ruling class or investing class, to take money out out of their pockets to bail out the rich folks. They are constantly told that they are invested in the rich folks success and that maybe the investor class will pass a little down so they can get that fast food job. They call us the consumers like they are talking about cattle, maybe they are. When will the consumers stop voting against their interests and realize you are never going to get to the top. Capitalism is a con game to make the cattle think they are telling the farmer when to feed them. Always has been..
This is actually kind of interesting, because capitalism has nothing to do with the free market and socialism has nothing to do with state-intervention in the economy. Capitalism and socialism are types relationship between laborers and the means of productions (which are also called "capital"). Socialism is when workers own the capital they rely on and get the full product of their labor. Capitalism is when capital is owned by an absentee-owner (called a capitalist) who extracts "surplus value" from the laborers and pays them less than their labor is worth via a wage or salary.
In a free market, socialist arrangements would be more likely because anyone would be able to pool their assets together in a mutual bank, produce their own hard currency, and give out loans. These loans would make it easy for laborers to buy out capitalists, landlords, etc. There would also be fewer entry barriers to industry, making DIY and cottage-industry more feasible. This would eliminate the reliance on large, bureaucratic organizations (what Ivan Illich called "radical monopoly") for all kinds of things including growing food, building houses, providing healthcare, transportation, and more.
Thanks for the concise summary. If only they taught this in US schools.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
If they did, everyone would drop out.
Why? Seriously, I'd like to know.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
Because schools are part of the statist system of repression. They're designed to turn people into passive, subordinate consumers who allow themselves to become cogs in the corporatist economy instead of free-thinking, creative laborers who live on their own terms.
Thanks for answering, and I see your point.
On the other hand, schooling is a vital method of transferring knowledge and skills to a new generation of workers. Schooling is critical to human vitality, growth and cognition of thousands of years of human experience. Otherwise we'd all still be in the trees.
Schooling can be made progressive, teaching also peace, ethics and equality amongst all. Our current No Child Left Behind regime is an utter disaster, but that is no reason to reject schooling wholesale.
If you want to eliminate methods of instilling consumerism, kill TV and other forms of corporate-motivated media and sport.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
I'm not against schooling per se (although I think there are better ways of learning certain skills, e.g. apprenticeships, self-teaching), I'm against compulsory schools, particularly those run by unaccountable monopolies of violence (government). "Progressive" education is impossible when the people educating you are the same people pointing guns at you.
Interesting summary, AndrewQ.
Based on your understanding of socialism, has there ever been a real socialist system/nation? If so, did it succeed? If not, why not?
First of all, "nation" wouldn't be an appropriate term for what I'm describing because I'm talking about a form of anarchism. Free market socialism requires that *all* services (even those that most people think can only be provided by the government like defense and arbitration) be provided privately.
But to answer your question, I would say no (or, at least none that I'm aware of). The closest thing to what I'm describing are the utopian communities created by the 19th century anarchist Josiah Warren. These communities did very well, but they ultimately failed because they were small and couldn't cope with external problems like interference from the Civil War.
If a society like the one I'm describing is ever to be created, it would require 3 things. First, people would have to refuse to support the government. Second, they would need to use pressure politics to force the government to shrink in size, leave them alone, etc. And msotl importantly, they would need to build "counter-institutions" (this is called "dual power") to supply their needs. This means replacing institutions owned or privileged by the state with alternatives. Homeschools to replace state-owned "public" schools. Neighborhood watches to replace the state's police. Community-supported agriculture to replace agribusiness. Health care co-ops to replace HMOs. And so on.
If you're interested in learning more about what I'm talking about, I'd recommend the books "Studies in Mutualist Political Economy" and "Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective" by Kevin Carson. Both are available online for free, so just Google them. I'd also check out "Community Technology" by Karl Hess (not free) and the websites Center For a Stateless Society and Strike The Root. I hope that helps.
Thank you Andrew for the great posts and reference. The Libertarian prescription sounds like the most promising since robber barons always tend to take over big government and big social programs with dirty cash.
"If a society like the one I'm describing is ever to be created, it would require 3 things. First, people would have to refuse to support the government. Second, they would need to use pressure politics to force the government to shrink in size, leave them alone, etc. And msotl importantly, they would need to build "counter-institutions" (this is called "dual power") to supply their needs. This means replacing institutions owned or privileged by the state with alternatives. Homeschools to replace state-owned "public" schools. Neighborhood watches to replace the state's police. Community-supported agriculture to replace agribusiness. Health care co-ops to replace HMOs. And so on."
The utopian system you describe exists today in the provincial rural areas of the Philippines. Small cottage industry flanked by a weak central government with few resources and a weak state police force which relies on local unpaid Barangy Captains and neighborhood watch solutions to keep order. Ample public transportation (few people have cars), limited consumerism, family structure instead of state courts etc. There are problems and poverty, but all things considered, most live a higher standard of living then people in the US imho. Few work more than a few days a week. Almost All take holidays and weekends off. Few are obese; most are happy. The Cities choked with American Consumerism and surrounded by slums on the other hand, are a living hell. Fortunately, the capitalists and tyrants are kept in check by an annual power-revoking rally which threatens to overthrow the government in no uncertain terms. In this society, the government is afraid of the people, so you have liberty. In the current American model, which is the subject of my indictment, the people are afraid of the government so they have oppression.
The Philippine constitution and gov was copied from America. The difference is, they still honor it.
TJ
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson
double post - pls disregard
Considering the generations long propaganda put out by ever-morphing permutations of the right wing noise machine, it is an appalling indictment of the wanton greed and general bad behavior by business types that only 53% of the population favors capitalism.
Yes! Very good point. Only 53% despite the endless one-sided commentary in the mainstream media. I suspect that number is sinking rapidly. Similarly, 70% in polls support the idea of a single-payer health care (insurance) system, but this is virtually never mentioned in the MSM. Even the idea of adding a government-run "public option" is labeled "controversial". Excuse me while I go barf.
At least 1 in 5 Americans prefer socialism yet there is no socialist party (to speak of). They have a choice of 2 capitalist parties. If democracy is about choice, the ability to chose representatives who support the same policies as you then, for many, if not most Americans, there is no choice.
Check out the composition of parliaments around the world (Wikipedia has the latest results). I couldn't find another democracy with less than 4 political parties represented in parliament. Many countries have considerably more. The Netherlands for example, a country of 16 million people, has 10 parties in its House of Representatives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_general_election,_2006
In the US, a country almost 20 times as large, our choices are essentially limited to 2 political parties. If you dare to consider a "third" party like the Green Party, you're accused of throwing your vote away or worse.
The "bottom line" is that the overwhelming majority of Americans have little ability to affect the course of their nation. Their vote is restricted to a narrow range of choices deemed acceptable by the nation's billionaires and the nation's corporations.
Any policy that doesn't fit with those priorities is "off the table", even if the majority wills it. I wonder how many Americans would have voted to bail out the Wall Street, a policy supported by both the Democrats and Republicans. The choice of nationalizing the banks and firing the clowns who ran them is "off the table". Americans are told that such a policy would be irrational but giving trillions to these same clowns who caused the problem is sane.
A healthy democracy requires that choices not be restricted by the selfish interests of the few. By this standard, US "democracy" is pretty sick.
I would like to think that the US Socialist Party is still relevant.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
"A healthy democracy requires that choices not be restricted by the selfish interests of the few. By this standard, US "democracy" is pretty sick."
Let's put the issue up for referendum.
I hate to say it, but in our current system, voting for a third party candidate is just throwing your vote away. At best, it is merely a protest vote. At worst, it hands the election to the minority.
The flaw is with our system. It does not allow third parties to become viable. The more successful a third party candidate becomes the more the vote is split and the election is handed to the minority. This happened with Clinton in 92 because of Perot. It happened with Lincoln in 1861 because the Dems were split. And I would argue that it gave us Bush in 2000.
We need a viable third party system. However, merely voting for third party candidates is ultimately a counter-productive practice. The system must be changed.
How about instant-runoff ballots?
-just throwing your vote away
Here we go again
-it hands the election to the minority
on payoffs to the banksters, who got their way? the upper class, one half of one percent, minority
on continuing the occupations? again the rich minority
etc,etc...and there are only two parties represented in congress. what was your point again marco?
-The flaw is with our system. It does not allow third parties to become viable
Oh yeah article one of the US constitution, only two parties allowed!...er no actually, have you even read your own constitution?
er, no, rather the fact that somnambulistic voters choose the same party over and over is the flaw in your system, There is nothing stopping you from voting for any party you want.
-the vote is split and the election is handed to the minority
Huh? You have a first passed the post system correct? the candidate with the most votes in each race wins. But of course what you mean is that progressive votes "belong" to the Dems and voting for another party that is responding to what the people say they want is splitting the "Democratic" vote. How dare people vote for who they want and cost the Dems a win! Just remind me again why a progressive should care whether it is a R or a D that keeps the empire rolling along?
-I would argue that it gave us Bush in 2000.
Here we go again. I think you will find that the people that voted for Bush gave you Bush. That and the roll-over Dems.
-We need a viable third party system. However, merely voting for third party candidates is ultimately a counter-productive practice. The system must be changed.
And your solution...vote for the Ds. Yes, and after voting them in a hundred more times they will spontaniously change the system that serves them so well? ...Right. And after that pigs will fly! If you want change then go out and make it.
What's the matter with you? Voting 3rd party is not throwing your vote away. It's showing courage that you won't fall for the corporate media election baloney. The only way we're going to get a 3rd party system is to vote those people in first and on all levels of government which I do. And don't give me that crap talk about spoiler voters. Unless we're talking voting for say a real braveheart such as Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, voting for either party is cowardice, a vote for bad status quo and getting more abused from it, and is itself a total throwaway vote. If you and some of the others would quit talking "electability" baloney and actually open your mind and heart and listen to what the candidates have to offer on the issues, 3rd parties would have a chance. Better yet, we might even get better Democrats and Republicans because they would then be forced to come clean or butt out. To tell us that voting for 3rd party is a waste of votes is like saying that being courageous is somehow stupid. I voted for Nader thrice and I'm proud of it. Yes, I voted Kucinich and Paul in the primaries but after that went back to voting Independent. Barry and Mcsame are like ding bat and ding dong, two birds of the same feather that flock together. Looking at the stupid faux "stimulus" package filled with pork and more tax breaks for the well-to-do and less spending where it's actually needed, more war spending, extending Dubya's FISA and opening the doors to more abuse of power by presidents, etc ... please tell me that we should just shut up and continue to soak ourselves with status quo !
Yes! Well-written, thank you.
"In the US, a country almost 20 times as large, our choices are essentially limited to 2 political parties. If you dare to consider a "third" party like the Green Party, you're accused of throwing your vote away or worse."
I have never accused anyone of throwing their vote away by voting for the Greens or anyone else. What I have come to realize, however, is that the system is in charge, not any political party. Even the Greens would have to dance to the tunes.
"The "bottom line" is that the overwhelming majority of Americans have little ability to affect the course of their nation. Their vote is restricted to a narrow range of choices deemed acceptable by the nation's billionaires and the nation's corporations."
I agree completely.
So, I ask, ad nauseum, what our choices are. If the system won't allow us to win, how can we win on our own?
Reminds me of the old joke about the difference between Capitalism and Communism.
Under Capitalism, man exploits man.
While under Communism, it is just the other way around.
Also reminds me of the Edna St. Vincent Millay quote:
"It's not true that it's one damn thing after another. It's the same damn thing over and over."
Or:
Under Communism we are equally poor, under capitalism we are unequally poor.
"The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism"
Most Americans have no idea what socialism "is". Their views of socialism are left-overs from the Government communist-scare programs of the Cold War, and today's rants by the Three Stooges (Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly).
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
Well as long as the Republicans keep telling people every time - universal health care is socialism! the progressive tax is socialism! minimum wage laws are socialism! Hey I think they just might catch on.
So comrades come rally, the last struggle let us face...
I hardly go a day without catching myself humming the "Internationale".
Am I a "fellow traveller" or what?
Of the "modern" versions of the song, I like the US/Anne Feeney version of the song.
I like the Billy Bragg version but it is so changed from the original version that it is really a new song sung to the old melody.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internationale
Wait a minute! Bad question! An economy, unless made subject to central control (Marxist), is, of necessity, driven by capitalism.
So, unless those in favor of "socialism" don't want an economy (favor Marxism), how can they favor "socialism" over "capitalism"?
I believe the proper question to poll is whether one favors electing a socially responsible government with adequate social services and oversight and control over capitalist excess, vs. maintaining the current freebooting market neo-liberalism.
Come on, Progressives, are none of you realists? Capitalism is the economic engine. We just want a better control chip.
I agree with the notion that the question itself is almost meaningless; neither socialism nor capitalism have ever existed.
The United States is certainly far from a free-market capitalist economy. The simple fact that there is massive government spending negates that, let alone manipulations through targeted tax breaks, subsidies and bailouts (which are not net things), and publicly funded research getting handed over to private companies.
The Soviet Union was certainly never socialist- labor unions were illegal! Maybe the closest thing to socialism we've ever seen in an industrial economy is Spain for about 2 years during the 1930s.
"Capitalism" is not the enemy, the problem is what centers of power are CALLING capitalism. Just like "globalization" is not the enemy, but rather the corporate version of globalization. I agree that it's a mistake of the left to say that capitalism isn't working. We should be arguing that it never existed, and that Adam Smith would be rolling over in his grave. This undercuts the use of "socialism" as a pejorative. "Socialism" is SUPPOSED to mean "worker control" and in the pejorative sense has come to mean "government control."