Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
It's Something to Build On: Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans
A new Gallup poll is out:
PRINCETON, NJ -- More than one-third of Americans (36%) have a positive image of "socialism," while 58% have a negative image. Views differ by party and ideology, with a majority of Democrats and liberals saying they have a positive view of socialism, compared to a minority of Republicans and conservatives.
"Socialism" was one of seven terms included in a Jan. 26-27 Gallup poll. Americans were asked to indicate whether their top-of-mind reactions to each were positive or negative. Respondents were not given explanations or descriptions of the terms.
Americans are almost uniformly positive in their reactions to three terms: small business, free enterprise, and entrepreneurs. They are divided on big business and the federal government, with roughly as many Americans saying their view is positive as say it is negative. Americans are more positive than negative on capitalism (61% versus 33%) and more negative than positive on socialism (36% to 58%)...
...more than a third of Americans say they have a positive image of socialism.
Exactly how Americans define "socialism" or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known. The research simply measures Americans' reactions when a survey interviewer reads the word to them -- an exercise that helps shed light on connotations associated with this frequently used term.
There are significant differences in reactions to "socialism" across ideological and partisan groups:
- A majority of 53% of Democrats have a positive image of socialism, compared to 17% of Republicans.
- Sixty-one percent of liberals say their image of socialism is positive, compared to 39% of moderates and 20% of conservatives.
More here from Gallup.
(Cartoon provided by Matt Wuerker. Matt has been POLITICO's editorial cartoonist and illustrator since their launch. In 2009, he was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in editorial cartooning. Over the past 25 years, his work has appeared in publications ranging from The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times to Smithsonian and the Nation, among many others.)
59 Comments so far
Show AllOne thing I got from this poll was that any form of government that threatens the wealthly,elite is anathema to them.
Unfortunately, it's not about what the majority of people want or about socialism. It's about the fact that health care, (and I use that term lightly) is a highly lucrative business. Some sick people? Some dead people? Or some more money in the pocket? Hummmmm.....
Money is important to these killers. People are not.
At least Craig admits; "Exactly how Americans define "socialism"or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known."
I would doubt that 36% of USAns could define socialism as a philosophy,or how it would be applied to a democratic, consciously run sustainable worker owned marketplace.
When Capitol"frankly owns the place"and doesn't wish to invest in the production of goods,labor is largely weakened as we see now.Capitol and the ways to grow it have become our largest product.Besides war.
These polls are next to useless.
peace
Hahaha... jinx!
Well I guess the Gallup folks won't be calling us soon.
peace
Thanks for the correction,it would be a capitol idea to use the spell check on these comments.
I would like to ask Craig if he believes most U.S. voters could define or describe a few "isms" comparatively.This population reelected Ronald Reagan and half of them voted for the Bush 2nd term.
As with almost all the polls ,the language of the questions is critical and mostly "leading" towards the desired response.
peace
"Exactly how Americans define "socialism" or what exactly they think of when they hear the word is not known."
Considering most Amercans have no clue what-so-ever as to what socialism is, this poll is meaningless.
I'd imagine that if most Americans understood that socialism meant that workers had control over the profits, administration, and means of production at the workplace; and that socialism didn't mean large gov't programs, then they would probably be for it by a much higher percentage. One of the tricks of communicating with people in America is to deprogram them concerning what they think words like: socialism, libertarian, anarchism, conservative, liberal, etc... actually mean. It's not easy. Up is down; left is right; freedom is slavery; words don't mean what they are meant to mean in the USA.
No, the poll is not meaningless. If it means anything at all, the poll means that the vilification of the term "socialism" does not have the traction that it once did. Otherwise, I agree with you.
Actually socialism has quite a few different meanings. The socialism you are referring to is more like theoretical communism. The kind of socialism practiced in Western Europe does involve large government programs-- universal health care, high taxes, large social safety nets and redistribution of wealth-- and involves highly regulated private business.
New poll reveals 18% of Americans can define 'socialism'.
Actually I was AMAZED how MANY Americans, after all the propaganda against socialism, still managed to be favorable to it. Especially since many probably equate socialism to authoritarian communism. Meaning they are REALLY pissed of at Things As They Are.
So be encouraged -- if these potential voters could be turned on to a progressive ticket, it would scare the sh!t out of the duology.
Gary
"Those who formally rule take their signals and commands not from the electorate as a body, but from a small group of men. This group will be called the Establishment. It exists even though that existence is stoutly denied. It is one of the secrets of the American social order... A second secret is the fact that the existence of the Establishment -- the ruling class -- is not supposed to be discussed."
-- Arthur S. Miller
The most radical of all concepts was the true one pointed out by the poster - Jesus WAS a Socialist, if by socialist one means "from each according to his means and to each according to his needs." THAT is quintessential Jesus, the same Jesus that is pure heresy to the Religious Reich.
Ahh, but how would they know that? They have no time to read the Gospel since they are too busy hitting people over the head with it.
Excellent point. And that's one reason why I think the most important thing progressives, who I *think* tend to be either atheists, secular humanists, etc., can do is "save" Jesus from the Christians.
Read the Acts of the Apostles for a description of the first attempt at a communist society. The attempt failed because of selfishness--a few who were not committed to sharing. Communism has functioned well in Christian communities for hundreds of years. There are monks and nuns, not just in Roman Catholicism but in the Orthodox Church and in some Lutheran and Anglican Churches. Every system of government is probably doomed to failure because of the selfishness of a few.
90% of the 36% misheard the word as "socialites".
Take heart from the results. :D That 36% have a positive view of socialism, in spite of nearly one hundred years of vilification and misinformation about socialists and socialism, shows that the people are thinking for themselves. Further, that the new McCarthyism isn't working.
All people need now is the courage to state publicly what their beliefs are.
On a side note if there was proportional respresentation, and fair elections in a non two party system, that would mean a third of government would be socialist.
.....lol; I see that gdgoodman has already pretty much stated as much already. :D
Ahhh- there IS hope then. Join the rest of the civilized world, who see a committment to the common good, including universal health care, paid for by progressive and fair taxes, as the basic requisite for a decent society for all.
Whats next? The Metric system?
Bill in Canada
I can just hear it - "Metric system? That's COMMUNISM!"
Or if they know who introduced the system...
We can't use that! It's French! We're not going to use cheese eating surrender measurements, or something like that.
We need a broad, enlightened socialist party in these US of A, preferably with a television channel of its own, where things are discussed openly and with documentaries on the major issues that are plaguing this country, and alternative news broadcasts.
Well, the Socialist Party-USA may not have a tv station but they have a web presence and, if you read their platform, are a wonderful bunch of committed people in favor of democracy and socialism and a rigrous debate on how to get there. While they and other Left parties are small, they are there and deserve a fresh, new look as they are miles away better than the Greens who have become tied to the rumps of the Dems, the CP-USA, which remains committed to doctrinaire Marxist-Lenisnism (and democratic centralism which squelches debates, as well as a "vanguard" idea that is loathesome to most Americans, and even more paradoxically, believe working with the Dems good) or the Peace and Freedom Party which exists in Califoria only. I think the only chance for a workable, socialist future in either a local form or potential nationwide one, is the SP-USA. Check them out.
Capitalism: I buy a cow. I make you milk my cow and give you a penny for doing so. I sell the rest of the milk and keep the money. (If someone gets sick on my milk, I disavow any responsibility for their sickness.) When I get enough milk money I buy another cow, and another, and another until I own a dairy, and then I buy a politician or two. Under capitalism there are only capitalists and those who do the milking—it is not always clear who or what is getting milked.
Socialism: I buy a cow. I milk the cow. I must give part of the milk to the government to pay for retirement, health care, education, public safety, housing, mass transit, and food inspection. What is left over, I get to keep. Under socialism, every one must do his part.
Communism: The state owns my cow. I must milk it and give all the milk to the state. The state doles out the milk to the consumers. If I get caught keeping any of the milk, or if my milk makes someone sick, I might get shot unless I have enough milk to bribe an official. .Under Communism there are only those who milk and those whose drink.
Your allegory explaining socialism and communism shows that your understanding of them comes from a capitalist perspective.
The CORE of socialism is worker control of production, in other words, ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY as opposed to the economic tyranny of the capitalist workplace.
Communism is an advanced stage and refers to a CLASSLESS, STATELESS and oppression-free society based on the economic democracy of socialism.
"Soviet" means worker's council. The first thing that the nascent USSR did was to destroy the soviets. Despite Soviet and Western (US) propaganda, the USSR was neither socialist nor communist. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state, the opposite of real socialism. Socialism without political AND economic democracy isn't socialism at all.
Exactly. Trotsky referred to this in exile when he wrote as to how Women were marginalized from the get go, thus creating a Class based Society.
Once the Paternalistic power embedded as a matter of Course, the State became ever more Totalitarian using the very same rationale used to marginalize women.
US Style Capitalism: I steal a cow from a native. I ship it overseas where I get chinese economic slaves to milk it for me on pain of death. I get paid by foreign governments to mix their toxic sewage into the milk, which I then ship to the USA for consumption. People complain and get sick so I bribe government to raise the allowable level of toxic sludge in the milk. I get rich and buy more cows. I have my pet politicians pass a law that requires everyone to drink a gallon of my milk a day. I have them make it illegal for anyone but me to own cows. People complain, so I pay the supreme court to give my corporation unlimited permission to give bribes to government. My corporation takes over the health care industry so I can profit from the people I make sick with my milk. I use my leverage to force teachers to teach kids of the perils of drinking water, and that puking all day is normal and patriotic.
I find another country that had more cows than me, and pay congress to declare war on them. I blow up all their cows. By now all my cows are getting kind of sickly from all the toxic sludge I force feed them, so I pay biologists to develop a genetic mutant half cow half slug that thrives on toxic sludge, but the milk tastes like shit and makes everyones eyeballs fall out. I invest in the seeing eye dog industry.
Freaking brilliant.
From "Why Socialism?" by Albert Einstein, published in Monthly Review, New York, May, 1949:
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
What's with the negativity here?
Despite being bombarded with propaganda AGAINST "socialism", "social democracy", "social welfare" and other socialistic concepts or constructions, 36% of persons polled "top-of-mind reaction" to the word "socialism" was POSITIVE!!
If this poll is even partially indicative of the genuine mood of the population at large, then this is the best news the true Left has recieved in YEARS.
And forget all the idiots who would have us be down because of their elitist ASSUMPTION that people other than themselves (and therefore not as smart as them) cannot define "socialism".
What does it matter if they can give you a lecture on the control of the means of production by the proletariat or the stable and egalitarian nature of a socially planned economy?
EVERYONE knows that "socialism" means either "not capitalism" or "government mitigated capitalism" or "capitalism European style". Let's not forget that we live in a country that is only 2 decades removed from a generations-spanning "cold war" AGAINST "socialist" countries. So people get the basic antagonistic-to-what-we-have-now nature of the thing.
This poll indicates that a portion of the Citizenry LARGER THAN THE STEADY VOTERS FOR BOTH OF THE MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES has resisted the anti-socialist propaganda that has encompassed their entire lives and has been ramped up out of control in the last decade.
Rejoice Lefties!
Take renewed energy from this evidence that more of the People are on "our side" than we have thought!
Use this energy in organizing genuine alternatives to the current status quo!
Stop wallowing in elitism and despair!
Get to work!
-matti.
I couldn't agree more. 36% positive on socialism is about 30% higher than I would have expected. But it is revealing that the term was never even basically defined in the survey. There are many variations on socialism, so it might be hard to provide a short and accurate definition, but at least 36% didn't have a negative reaction to the word. We have Wall Street to thank for this, in large part. Also the gradual disintegration of this whole economy, which has been built on a foundation of lies and is now held together by scotch tape.
Robert Kuttner uses the term 'managed capitalism' to explain the capitalism America practiced between 1930 and 1980, when just about everything went right in this country. That would make 'trickle down economics' equal 'unmanaged capitalism', which sounds about right too.
[big smile]
Yes, it is wonderful news. :D
Yes, socialism is quite popular! Here, here! The times they are achangin'!
Yes, I think we have to avoid the pull of the whole win/lose, two-party, 60 vote defeatism that has been drilled into our heads. I mean, if the poll were actually true throughout the US, that's about 100 million, right? And I think people who are willing to admit they are positively disposed towards socialism in todays chilly atmosphere have more courage than those who identify with capitalism or free markets. I mean the one (socialism) could get you killed, while the other... well the others just means you have been well-marketed to (i.e. you're a tool). Socialists have guts because admitting it is bound to make you a target.
I am a socialist, therefor I rock! Come and get me!!
(No, but seriously if you guys don't hear from me, call the cops... no wait, don't do that...call , um... Hell yeah! Call Nader!)
I don't know if I believe in socialism, it seems to have two meanings. I just believe in progressive taxation (and campaign finance reform), and entrust that a true democracy has the means to keep 'big government' from being 'autocratic government'. A lot of 'conservatives' don't like progressive taxation. They say its unfair to tax the rich more. But frankly, we've been trying it their way for 30 years and the country is a mess. The wealthiest 1% of America have gone from owning 20% of the country, to owning 50% of the country. The rest of the country is working two jobs, if they can find jobs, and is rather poor, by historical standards. Considering how rich America is, this is not a happy country.
Anyway, I have a deep dislike for 'Reagan conservatives', who keep saying it's immoral to tax the rich more and say they want 'small government'. In my mind, every one of them should be forced to carry a sign that reads:
'I don't believe in taxing the rich; just the children'
The $11 trillion debt handed off to Obama last year is 100% their fault, and was created entirely by GOP presidents: esp Reagan and Bush. If these people don't believe in taxing the rich, why don't they first pay the Reagan/Bush debt, and THEN lecture me about the immorality of making the rich pay more in taxes. It is arguably immoral to make the rich pay more in taxes, but the immorality of making the CHILDREN pay more in taxes is inarguable. Yet thats exactly what these so-called 'conservatives' have done to America: made their grandchildren pay for their greed-fest in the 1980s.
RE: The $11 trillion debt handed off to Obama last year is 100% their fault, and was created entirely by GOP presidents: esp Reagan and Bush.
Not true. The "need" for the "bailout" was created by the deregulation of the banking industry. The most important being a Depression era regulation called the "Glass-Steagall act" that created a firewall between investment (speculative) and commercial banking (e.g. mortgages). The act was repealed with bipartisan support during the Clinton administration. The sector which provided Obama with the most lavish campaign funding was also banking.
About $10 trillion of the $11 trillion I mentioned bears no relation to banking deregulation, it is simply the debt run up by Reagan ($3 trillion), which continued to grow because everyone was too chicken to raise taxes and too chicken to cut spending, so that by the time Bush Jr became president, it was $5.5 trillion. Bush doubled it, to $11 trillion, mostly by cutting taxes again (hey, it got him reelected), and fighting two trillion dollar wars in the middle East. At the end of 2008, Bush put another trillion on it in the form of TARP, and THAT was due to banking deregulation.
So: 90% of the $11 trillion debt handed off to Obama was due to wildly popular Reagan/Bush tax cuts, and the people that voted for them. The other 10% was due to Glass-Steagal, lax regulation, etc. Since then, Obama's put another trillion on, mostly due to banking deregulation, and that'll continue for some time. But about $10 trillion of our $12 trillion debt was put there simply by people who didn't want to pay their taxes, and the politicians abetted them. They wanted YOU to pay their taxes, and they got what they asked for.
[RE: The $11 trillion debt handed off to Obama last year is 100% their fault, and was created entirely by GOP presidents: esp Reagan and Bush.
Not true. ]
Yes, that is true. Note that the $11 Trillion debt does _NOT_ include the money spent on the bailout of the banking industry. Thanks to the bailout money, and this years spending your national debt is going up to over $12.5 trillion. It also doesn't include the unfunded liabilities that are owed by the people of the usa to the people of the usa, things like Social Security, medicare, etc, which is another $40 odd trillion dollars. It also doesn't include the debts owed by the States, or the cities.
In short, Ronald Reagan and his heirs have done more economic damage to the usa than any other enemy in your history. By deferring taxes, he raised them for all of you. As you now have to pay the original debt, and the interest on that debt.
And pay you will, one way or another...
Don't worry, 'they' will make it as politically invisible as possible. Through inflation, most likely, Americans over the next 40 years will just be somewhat puzzled by the fact that they keep working 50 hrs a week, and never seem to get ahead (cuz their salary, in dollars, just isn't worth that much). Thus is debt successfully leveraged on 'nose to the grindstone' little people who never knew what hit them. Complain, and the empire-state will come down on your head with all its $1 trillion a year fury. No one complains in this, the best of all possible worlds.
There's an Edward G Robinson character in 'Soylent Green'. I'm beginning to feel like him.
I'm not that worried, I don't live in the states. But inflating your way out of the national debt might not be that good of an idea. It'll wipe out all wealth from people who are not worth hundreds of millions of current day dollars. You'll risk the repeat of taking a wheelbarrow of money if you want to buy a loaf of bread, or do a Zimbabwe and print trillion dollar bills so people can buy a slice of bread.
The current situation with the debt and the economy is a recipe for the establishment of a real police/totalitarian state. I'm thinking of a character in Mad Max... (not the idiot Gibson either)
Sol, the character's name is Sol.
It's an interesting film in that it talked about the effects of global climate change nearly 40 years ago and put the blame square on capitalist materialism and the american way of life.
Another film I hope we don't see come true is Silent Running.
Try asking them if they believe in universal single payer sometime. Ask them about specific socialist concepts.
To many people the word "socialism" is murky. They're not sure if you're talking about Sweden or the old USSR.
Or Canada
Socialism used to be a bad word until the Great Depression. I think we're coming to another one ahead. We're not there yet.
Socialism and Communism as the Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines them and as I was taught in school almost 50 years ago: socialism: the means of production are owned by the community. (The community owns the cow.) communism: The community owns everything. (The community owns the glass you drink from as well as the cow's milk.)
As far as I am concerned, I do not like the idea of corporations controlling banks, roads, health care, mass transit (including railraods and airlines), telephone service, water supply, the generation and supplying of electricity, or many other things. I trust government far more than corporations and feel that I have far more voice in government decisions than corporate decisions. Capitalism is sheer anarchy.
The very existance of insurance companies and Wall Street (As we know it.) is a symptom of a sick society.
Jesus was a communist, not a socialist.
Was Jesus a Socialist or a Tribal Communalist? His names in paradoxical animal symbology are Lamb of God & Lion of Judah as he was born of the Tribe of Judah.
His original disciples tried living as communalists but they were still in the warmongering world of man living under man's worldly governments in the system then that worshiped at the Temple of Mammon.
There are stories from within Tribes that Jesus lived in this land long long long ago. The Mormons in their book say he lived in this land with Tribes, too. You never know?
Petroglyphs found in recently Colorado could not be read until similar ones that had been found in the Negev Desert Israel dated around 1500 B.C. could be compared. The ones in Colorado gave reference to Canaan, YH, (The God of Israel & of all Creation)
There are other similar things in this land as well that go a long ways back in time. Far beyond 1491. Even back to when the land masses appeared to pretty much be joined as one land mass at one time.
Worldly Governments no matter how they disguise themselves usually come to be ruled over by the most ruthless eventually. Jesus taught his disciples the Kingdom of of Heaven is not of the world of man, this world.
So who knows perhaps he did live with Tribes long ago in this land & had a good life at that time?
Outside of academic circles, "socialism" has been warped into a buzzword for fascist perception managers (who have long profited by the maxim that there is no risk in over estimating the ignorance of the U.S. population).
To my knowledge, the only admitted socialist in government is Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who, in word and deed, exemplifies his concern for SOCIAL COHERENCE, a pattern of public policy and behavior which emphasizes the pursuit of the essentials of a rational, functional, decent and enduring society.
This is best understood by using the C.I.A. World Fact Book (just Google CIA) to compare the capitalist U.S. to socialist nations such as Sweden, Finland , Denmark, etc. Focus on the manner in which these nations apply their resources and distribute the proceeds. What are the relative investments in education, health care, military arsenals and aggression? What are the relative rates of crime and corruption in government and business? How does security and quality of life for the average citizen compare among these nations?
In defense of The People, I rest my case.
Ever since the 1950's, and probably before, it has been the co-opted democratic party, in partnership with union sell-outs who have effectively removed the entire left component of the political spectrum from the national dialogue.
Fascist Joe McCarthy appeared on the scene, no doubt as a manifestation of the corporate dream,, and the strategy of the d-party was "Run away, run away!!!"
It has been a steep downhill slope from that point to where we are today.
Obama is, on most issues, significantly to the right of Richard Nixon. That's where we are now.
I am a socialist. Always have been. For a time I wasted my efforts attempting to shift the d-party leftward. What a waste of time.
The promise ofn the Obomber fiasco is, to me, that the nakedness of the emperor has been flagrantly revealed. Lots of people have witnessed the corrupt nature of nour duopoly and are ready to move on.
Our task is to create the vehicle for that magnificent journey.
The relative rates of crime, corruption, healthcare spending, education spending only point to American contradictions. With a population that is "dumbing" down because of lack of access to properly produced and independent media it makes sense.
I don't know much about Bernie Sanders from Vermont so I can't comment on your sense perceptions and readings of his public image but I do gather that the numbers of people on our side is dwindling. Good post, amigo!
Best,
Christopher
The fact of the matter is is that the term socialism has been polluted over the course of "history" with various ideologic-propaganda to ensure that the people of a democracy remain "in-the-dark" about particular topics. Perhaps what is urgently needed is a (re)theorization of what socialism is and COULD MEAN for the 21st. century.
As for owning the glass that you drink the cow's milk from, well, that's just foolishness. We don't want your bike or your glass. We want the surplus value and the resources derived from said surplus value (and the earth) that we produced through OUR labor to be evenly distributed. As the technology increases and the demand for manual labor decreases, capital must reinvent it's cultural-ideological alibis to keep the motion of capital flowing. As technology increases we begin to see less a need for the extraction of surplus labor in the form of manual labor hence the switch over to "informational-casino" capitalism, which necessarily correspond to changes in social relations of production. Hence why we see all the "neo" groups i.e. tea parties, racist ideologues popping up here and there. Then you have the media who is eager to report it to incite further factionalism amongst the general population who don't necessarily follow politics because it's (un)interesting.
end rant!
Using loaded terms for effect!
While the Gallup poll shows 36% see "socialism" positively, ~79% of Republicans see the term negatively, and a generally speaking, some 58% Americans see it negatively. But what happens if we apply the loaded term specifically to an individual or an institution like the President or the White House?
(Below: see data from recent Research 2000 poll contracted by dailyKos. Target audience, conservatives.)
As the loaded term is flung around for effect, the fallacious definition is rarely challenged. Tit for tat holds fast. One's view on the subject of socialism can hardly be reasonable if one cannot identify the basic criteria.
QUESTION: Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?
---------YES--NO--NOT SURE
------All--63---21---16
----Men--66---20---14
Women-60---22---18
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437
Ah. If ONLY the Republicans were right this time. But that's an unlikely event I admit.
Gary
“The trouble with the Labour Party is that they don't really believe in Socialism, but they cannot wholeheartedly approve of private enterprise either.”
-- Joseph Grimond