EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- You and Your Family Are Guinea Pigs for the Chemical Corporations
- The Life and Death of Words, People, and Even Nature
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 by CommmonDreams.org
Capitalism: Big Surprises in Recent Polls
According to the conventional wisdom, the US is a center-Right country. But a new poll by Pew casts
doubt on that idea. It shows widespread skepticism about capitalism and
hints that support for socialist alternatives is emerging as a
majoritarian force in America’s new generation.
Carried out in late April and published May 4, 2010,
the Pew poll, arguably by the most respected polling company in the
country, asked over 1500 randomly selected Americans to describe their
reactions to terms such as “capitalism,” “socialism,” “progressive,”
“libertarian” and “militia.” The most striking findings concern
“capitalism” and “socialism.” We cannot be sure what people mean by
these terms, so the results have to be interpreted cautiously and in
the context of more specific attitudes on concrete issues, as discussed
later.
Pew summarizes the results in its poll title:
“Socialism not so negative; capitalism not so positive.” This turns out
to be an understatement of the drama in some of the underlying data.
Yes, “capitalism” is still viewed positively by a majority of
Americans. But it is just by a bare majority. Only 52% of all Americans
react positively. Thirty-seven percent say they have a negative
reaction and the rest aren’t sure.
A year ago, a Rasmussen poll found similar reactions. Then, only 53% of Americans described capitalism as “superior” to socialism.
Meanwhile, 29% in the Pew poll describe “socialism”
as positive. This positive percent soars much higher when you look at
key sub-groups, as discussed shortly. A 2010 Gallup poll found 37% of all Americans preferring socialism as “superior” to capitalism.
Keep in mind these findings reflect an overview of
the public mind when Right wing views seem at a high point – with the
Tea Party often cast as a barometer of American public opinion. The
polls in this era do not suggest a socialist country, but not a
capitalist-loving one either. This is not a “Center-Right” America but
a populace where almost 50% are deeply ambivalent or clearly opposed to
capitalism. Republicans and the Tea Party would likely call that a
Communist country.
The story gets more interesting when you look at two
vital sub-groups. One is young people, the “millennial generation”
currently between 18 and 30. In the Pew poll, just 43% of Americans
under 30 describe “capitalism” as positive. Even more striking, the
same percentage, 43%, describes “socialism” as positive. In other
words, the new generation is equally divided between capitalism and
socialism.
The Pew, Gallup and Rasmussen polls come to the same
conclusion. Young people cannot be characterized as a capitalist
generation. They are half capitalist and half socialist. Since
the socialist leaning keeps rising among the young, it
suggests—depending on how you interpret “socialism”—that we are moving
toward an America that is either Center-Left or actually majoritarian
socialist.
Turn now to Republicans and Democrats. Sixty-two
percent of Republicans in the Pew poll view capitalism as positive,
although 81 % view “free markets” as positive, suggesting a sensible
distinction in their mind between capitalism and free markets. Even
Republicans prefer small to big business and are divided about big
business, which many correctly see as a monopolistic force of
capitalism undermining free markets.
The more interesting story, though, is about
Democrats. We hear endlessly about Blue Dog Democrats. But the Pew poll
shows a surprisingly progressive Democratic base. Democrats are almost
equally split in their appraisal of capitalism and socialism.
Forty-seven percent see capitalism as positive but 53% do not. And 44%
of Democrats define socialism as positive, linking their negativity
about capitalism to a positive affirmation of socialism.
Moreover, many other subgroups react negatively to
capitalism. Less than 50% of women, low-income groups and less-educated
groups describe capitalism as positive.
So much
for the view that Obama does not have a strong progressive base to
mobilize. In fact, “progressive,’ according to the Pew poll, is one of
the most positive terms in the American political lexicon, with a
substantial majority of almost all sub-groups defining it as positive.
You may conclude that this all add ups to little,
since we can’t be clear about how people are defining “capitalism” and
“socialism.” But in my own research, summarized in recent books such as The New Feminized Majority and Morality Wars,
attitudes registered in polls toward concrete issues over the last
thirty years support the interpretation of the Pew data, at minimum, as
evidence of a Center-Left country.
On nearly every major issue, from support minimum
wage and unions, preference for diplomacy over force, deep concern for
the environment, belief that big business is corrupting democracy, and
support for many major social programs including Social Security and
Medicare, the progressive position has been strong and relatively
stable. If “socialism” means support for these issues, the
interpretation of the Pew poll is a Center-Left country.
If socialism means a search for a genuine systemic
alternative, then America, particularly its youth, is emerging as a
majoritarian social democracy, or in a majoritarian search for a more
cooperativist, green, and more peaceful and socially just order.
Either interpretation is hopeful. It should give
progressives assurance that even in the “Age of the Tea Party,” despite
great dangers and growing concentrated corporate power and wealth,
there is a strong base for progressive politics. We have to mobilize
the majority population to recognize its own possibilities and turn up
the heat on the Obama Administration and a demoralized Democratic
Party. If we fail, the Right will take up the slack and impose its
monopoly capitalist will on a reluctant populace.
- Posted in
Comments are closed
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
250 Comments so far
Show AllWhat does it matter what the average American emotes when he hears the word "capitalism?" The capitalists themselves are so powerful now that public opinion is only a staged propaganda coup away.
The "opinions" of average people are programmable via television schedule.
Average people have been trained - via commercial media - to respect their capitalists more than their neighbors who they never talk to.
The distinction between "Capitalism/socialism" and "militarism" is a very important one to make, and without a strong critique of militarism, you are correct that debates about "socialism" vrs "capitalism" really are pretty meaningless.
I am not sure how "solidly" Americans really are behind militarism, though. Certainly they have thoughtlessly enjoyed the benefits of living in a nation that represents five percent of the world's population while absorbing 25% of the world's resources--and that would never have been possible without American militarism.
I think the situation is beginning to shift. I think the majority views the two endless wars as bad policy and a sink hole of resources. At the same time, there is a romanticism attached to "supporting the troops" and so a massive groundswell of protest against the war seems unlikely.
It becomes even more complicated when viewing the way that the entire economy is already militarized. Few people will admit that they like seeing such an absurd amount of money being pumped into the defense budget, but everybody screams like hell when the pentagon proposes cutting their particular base or weapons factory. The most "progressive" members of the legislature will still fight tooth and nail to keep military-industrial jobs in their district.
I don't really think this is so much a symptom of solid support for militarism so much as it is a desperation response to being trapped without a heartless capitalist economic system. In capitalism there are winners and losers and every American, regardless of how ignorant or uneducated he might be, still understands the zero-sum game perfectly. You lose that good pay job welding for the defense industry and you are probably going to lose your entire way of life and sink into poverty. Workers know that, so they are strong-armed into support for militarism.
Briggs Seekins
briggsseekins.wordpress.com
"Few people will admit that they like seeing such an absurd amount of money being pumped into the defense budget, but everybody screams like hell when the pentagon proposes cutting their particular base or weapons factory."
Everybody 'screams like hell' because of the FEAR of losing one's way of life, the reasons for which you outlined in your final paragraph.
If our representatives really gave a damn about their constituents, they would present them with the following solution: "We are closing this weapons factory because the need for said weapon is obsolete. But no need to worry. We will be converting this factory into a solar panel manufacturing plant and will train you (for free) to operate the new machinery. None of you will be denied this opportunity."
Sioux Rose
OLD PECULIAR: Right on!
Excellent posts: MAMMON, CONSCIENCE, BUCK, etc.
PROMETHEUS: Even with the statistics in plain view you still argue for your Texas jingoism, and that the nation reflects YOUR right of center views. Wow. I'll bet you were right out there in the Middle Ages insisting that the earth was flat! You can change your screen name 100 times, but you never seem to allow your views to change or evolve. Pity.
Poll's... if it BELONGS to the poll, then it is poll's, otherwise plural = polls.
thank you! well stated.
Sioux Rose
BRIGGS: You leave out some amazing factors.
#1. When Eisenhower was about to leave office he saw that the military had begun to become a beast wanting war as a means for making profit. He warned about this.
2. Today, due to the prevalence of the same military industrial complex that Ike warned wisely about, its tentacles are inside of most states and with today's awful economy (thanks to NAFTA & GATT shipping the best jobs overseas), local governments will argue FOR the "jobs program" that military outfitters provide.
3. Hollywood glorifies war. The national anthem glorifies war. The INTENSE passion for team sports like football, glorifies very powerful feelings of team loyalty. This is all "soft" propaganda that segues smoothly into such notions as "with us or against us," as well as the erroneous effete concept of "enemy."
4. War serves the elites VERY profitably. Note all the money Cheney's company made in shoddy construction projects in Iraq, and all the money that JUST disappeared, and all the money that went to a disgusting pro-kill operation like Blackwater, etc. Think Smedley Butler!
So your glib dismissal of the POWER of militarism and how it holds much of this nation under thrall is either an apology for this force, or the product of rather shallow thinking. Shades of "don't look here, nothing to see in this corner."
In the U.S. we are ruled by the ethos of Mars (the warrior) wedded to Mammon (the love of $). It's a sinister marriage and its fruit is becoming PAINFULLY clear in numerous aspects of American life. Karmic blowback is operating!
PROMETHEUS: Your use of the apostrophe is annoying. It is posessive, not plural!
"PROMETHEUS: Your use of the apostrophe is annoying. It is posessive, not plural!"
Did I mention I was in the English honor society, but flunked English? I'll try to do better. Keep on me!
Where are the Socialist tanks?
I agree that this is a center right country and poll's like this are wishful thinking. I don't think people do see Food Stamps, public schools, Medicare and Social Security as socialistic though. I think they only think of Russia, North Korea, Communism, socialized medecine when Socialism is mentioned.
I really don't believe Americans are solidly behind "militarism", frankly I'm not sure it even exists in our country. It could very well be something else called that.
Completely off topic and I apologize to everyone else...our bathrooms in all our schools here (boys at least) were all clean and neat. I checked different times of the day (one each) for elementary, Middle and High.
Our superintendent informs me we can't have microwaves because it would cut into the profit off the school cafeteria, if fewer kids ate their food they would get less money.
We will see about that...the asshole...I think its a great idea and would allow kids a chance to bring better food from home. Also looking into their menu's in any case.
Thank your daughter again for me.
"He lives and works in a liberal enclave, and that says it all."
Yup. I grew up in another NE college town liberal enclave, and spent large parts of my career living and working in the redneck south and southwest.
For most people in the US, "socialism" means the gulag or frizzy-haired (aka crazy Jewish faggots/Abe Hoffmann) radicalism so that everyone will be atheist homos on welfare.
Concerning "militarism", most everybody wants military contracts, especially when most of the other manufacturing and technical jobs have been off-shored. The military industry is the only game left and even that has been partially or even mostly off-shored.
"Most people are simply confused between these 2 dominant images they are presented with regarding the seemingly vague notions of the theories of 'socialism'"
I think thats a fair comment.
"They love 'the troops' and identify with them"
I think that is true, but its because they are our children, friends of our children and most people understand the need for a strong military. BUT..."that it is perfectly acceptable for it to be deployed everywhere and at anytime, with or without any real authorization" I do not think that is true. Remember most people in America opposed the invasion of Iraq.
Supporting these kids who are simply doing their duty, as they should, is what anyone in my opinion should do. They didn't decide where they were going, our fearless cowards did. They are staying because this bunch keeps them there.
Hate is not a strong enough word for the way I feel about war. Anyone that has seen war, seen real combat would resist sending our country to war with every fiber of their being unless there was no other choice, None. Which wasn't the case here. These were attacks and occupations of choice based on lies.
I detest and oppose these attacks and occupations every way I can, but at the same time I will never treat these kids with less than respect and support them any way I can because they are not at fault, none. They and our flag are simply a symbol of America and what she should be, not of what our government and leaders are.
I think your comment about conservative/liberal America is more than fair.
"He lives and works in a liberal enclave, and that says it all."
This statement goes right to the heart of the problem as I see it. Most Progressives as well as many liberals talk only to themselves and they essentially spit in the face of the very people they need to convince.
RE:What is well known, is that the US people are STILL SOLIDLY BEHIND continuous militarism.
Do you have evidence for that statement? The military gets complete bi-partisan support, with each party trying to outdo each other to increase funding. Some legislation that could be marginally described as socialistic, like "the public option", at least gets some airplay, though not passed. No one in the Establishment is meaningfully critical of the military. If one is opposed to the Pentagon budget it is of no help to vote for the "other" party. Since Americans have no political platform to represent opposition in the "continuous militarism"of their country, it is spurious to say that they are "solidly behind" it.
Note the Congressional threats to override the DOD plan to delete some of the procurements for the weapons manufacturers. The citizens understand the waste, fraud and abuse but Congress wants the campaign bucks in spite of the facts. People in America are troop friendly(see V.A. and GI Bill) and they should be. Politicians are war friendly and this is because of the money and largesse of political favors repaid by legal bribery. We Americans are not militaristic, per se. Our leaders are because of the wealth it gives them and their backers. We should all agree that money for military build-ups is money thrown down a rathole and is economically unsupportable if we are to save our country. Some pols get this but Presidents want fear and war to get more power. We need another Gene McCarthy/Bobby K/Insert Conservative here-- renegade to challenge the Establishment. I'm all for dumping Obama and Company in favor of an anti-war, anti-corporate and pro-growth candidate 2012. The mood is right for upheavel and political outsiders.
Believe it or not Gates is actually challanging the Pentagon on spending and weapon sysytems. Wonders will never cease.
He is aware we spend far too much on the military though, lets see if he gets any support.
I've been flipped off lots times to at anti war activities too, yet I don't draw the same conclusion.
Take the Pew poll among members of Congress. Then ask why is it that these people are in power in such predominate numbers. More than a few of us know the system is rigged, that it only a pretense of Democracy. But none of us seem to know what to do about it.
What to do about the problem of American dysfunctional government has been clearly described here:
Daniel Lazare: The Frozen Republic, and this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_AwOZmnDO0
Sanford Levinson: Our Undemocratic Constitution
Larry Sabato; A More Perfect Constitution
Steven Hill: 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy; and Fixing Elections
Larry Lessig: www.callaconvention.org
David Cobb: www.movetoamend.org
We need a new constitutional convention so we the people can fix our second and self-contradictory Constitution, or a set of democracy amendments to fix it. Otherwise, it will be more of our totalitarian plutocracy in the decades to come until we, Sampson-style, drag down the entire world onto ourselves in an orgy of ecocide.
Under the current and second US Constitution we have had 233 state constitutional conventions. (See John Dinan's book The American State Constitutional Tradition.) It is time to fix at the national level what has been fixed at a state level many times. For example, look at the ridiculous supermajorities required to amend our constitution via Article V (as large as 95 percent of the American people) compared to sensible amending processes such as Montana's Article 14.
We as Americans have the right, and indeed, the duty, to remove the totalitarian forces who have seized our nation via new constitutional protections, designs and processes.
The Finish people gave themselves and their government proportional representation (invented in 1844) in 1906. (http://countrystudies.us/finland/121.htm) Here we are in 2010, more than a century later, with a crappy, winner-take-all, first-past-the-post, primitive, two-party system corrupted and controlled by the richest one percent and their corporate institutions. We have a totalitarian plutocracy, not a government of, by and for the people.
But . . . the American people via precedent; via the preambles to the Declaration of Independence and the current Constitution; and by Amendments nine and 10, have the right to fix or replace our Constitution.
What to do is one thing. DOING IT requires reading and understanding such things as I describe in this note. And vast mass-action. And a constitutional convention.
Progressives, do your study! Read up on electoral and constitutional systems! Get smart about fixing our government!
A Center-Right Electorate (as opposed to Country) would never have elected Barack Obama as President. The defining characteristic of a Center-Right America is Race. The mitigation of race as a controlling factor in the electorate and the concentration of wealth in the far reaches of the Right secures a Center-Left electorate. The results in today's Republican primaries will be instructive.
If people understood socialism better, it would poll at an even higher positive. Here in Texas people do have knee jerk reactions to the word socialism. They picture grim, apathetic public officials, with pockets filled with taxpayer money, ruling over everyone (which actually is what is happening under the current taxpayer funded totalitarian capitalist corporate communism).
If people understood that infrastructure is socialist, that public schools are socialist, that police and fire departments are socialist, that regulation is socialist in protecting people from being sold snake oil as medicine, and from having our funds used as casino chips, that the "social" in socialist is all of us, that theoretically we are our government, there wouldn't be the constant hymn to "free markets" which are actually corrupt feudal structures nowadays.
Since it occurs to me that neocons always use language to spin their agendas, I think it's time for progressives to find new labels too. I'm in for the "common party" and the "common good". Common Dreams is a great name for a website.
"Here in Texas people do have knee jerk reactions to the word socialism"
Ain't that the truth!!
But instead of explaining the good aspects of socialism and its benefit in conjunction with a real capitalist economy, everyone seems to spend their time attacking American citizens as dumb, ignorant, uninformed, rednecks, not like us superior intellect folks, knuckledragging hicks.
Sicialism as an economic system or a governmental ststem has alway failed and for the obvious reasons. I'm no socialist nor would I ever choose such a counterproductive system overall, but there are obvious places where socialism and its benefits belong. We should be exploring that.
I was struck by your statement "Since it occurs to me that neocons always use language to spin their agendas, I think it's time for progressives to find new labels too. I'm in for the "common party" and the "common good". Common Dreams is a great name for a website."
I completely agree, time for some new thinking, but not to spin really, but to describe things honestly.
The polls are meaningless. When the rich Capitalists own the financial, corporate, media and military sectors of an economy, it really doesn't matter what the drones think.
Any insurrection will be put down with the predictable outcome. Just look at what is happening in Greece, Romania and Thailand for a preview of what is to come from your Capitalist Masters of the Universe. Socialism IS and always HAS been for the RICH only.
Well...I think the Drones here are about to stick it to em! They just think they are the Masters of the Universe. They don't OWN the wealth, they simply control it. That CAN change.
"Sicialism (sic) as an economic system or a governmental ststem (sic) has alway failed and for the obvious reasons."
I disagree with you. I think socialism has worked beautifully all over Europe for a really long time, and is now coming under fire due to the forces of so called globalism--IMF, world bank, banksters, multinational corporations, the forces that are operating as fronts for global feudalism. Perhaps if each country remained sovereign and resisted involvement with the European Union, the dismantling of socialism wouldn't be such a strong movement, but the global feudalists point to health care and national pensions as government waste. I guess they see it as money that could be going toward the profits of multinational banksters and corporations.
Some of the expectations that go with socialism are a marvel nowadays, like how in Denmark the shops only stay open until 6pm, how businesses close down from xmas eve until January 2 (not being sentimental about christian holidays, a week's shutdown at winter solstice would do me fine), how people use mass transit combined with bicycles, how women give birth and never even see a hospital bill.
Well, at least you are not alone in disagreeing with me. :)
The life styles provided by the Social Democracies in Europe are indeed wonderful. But they were and are unsustainable. Delcining productivity combined with rising spending and fewer workers dictated what is happening right now.
It has little to do with bankers in the end. Its simply demographics and birthrate plus immigration. The class system in Europe also plays a hand. Its a wonder it took this long.
We had better be paying attention is the important thing.
"like how in Denmark the shops only stay open until 6pm, how businesses close down from xmas eve until January 2 (not being sentimental about christian holidays, a week's shutdown at winter solstice would do me fine), how people use mass transit combined with bicycles, how women give birth and never even see a hospital bill"
The only thing I see in the above that wouldn't work here is a 6PM closing time or mass transit as it is in Europe. Closing early is a contributive factor to less income for the government and mass transit European style in the US is not possible because of our geography.
"The only thing I see in the above that wouldn't work here is a 6PM closing time or mass transit as it is in Europe. Closing early is a contributive factor to less income for the government and mass transit European style in the US is not possible because of our geography."
Ok Prometheus, I admit that I was upset at times when I would not be able to walk into a store during regular evening hours and yes, I was wierdly looked at and made fun of when I was suggesting that they keep shops open until 9 PM. However, I adjusted and because I prefer visiting smaller shops to large retail showoffs, I thought "fine, let them fail anyway". They also understood and apologized as well.
Mass transit is possible in the US but both parties in Washington and in the states are refusing to fund the infrastructure because they are in bed with Big Auto and Big Oil. Even when they do, mismanagement occurs and no one is held accountable. When I rode those trains throughout Europe, I was reminded of the dirty and inefficient trains I had to pay far more for and their price fares have gone up while quality never improved. Yes, I was asked about why the US never wants to improve public transportation and I did not hesitate to discuss America's love for those filthy big butt gas guzzlers even though it would hurt me to let the truth be known. Oh they had fun laughing while I was very jealous and upset inside. This is one of the things I was jealous about. I hope you understand where we are coming from on this. I was glad to see fewer of those guzzlers there and ride trains that rode well, wouldn't shake so much, and wouldn't get into the habit of purposely inducing delays. I say take those gas guzzlers off the road and reuse all that metal towards improving, upgrading, and expanding public transportation nationwide. The railroading infrastructure would have stayed in the US and improved had it not been for Big Oil/Auto and their corrupt cronies in Congress.
Jennifer, where did you go on your recent trip to Europe?
I find also that shops closing at 6pm causes the cafes and restaurants to fill up in the evening, so there's really not a loss of business overall. The disposable income just finds a different target.
Bliss, in Europe I visited Sweden, Germany, France, and Poland. I have relatives in France and Poland but they had cordial friends in the other two countries to assist me. I also visited Russia and South Africa after Europe. I had older granduncles and grandaunts from my mother's side. I will say that going on a trip outside the US was no easy thing and I would not have thought of taking an expensive trip by myself. I was able to save money by being with my relatives and their friends as guests. My only goal was to see what the average life was like outside the US because I had felt that just reading the books and the internet wasn't enough. I wished I had been to the UK though I got to hear lots about it throughout Europe. Although I could generally adjust most of my lifestyle overseas, I still felt that I would always have to face US influence and I still missed the good folks back home. Maybe I might feel different the next time I go for a long journey outside the country. How many times have you been to Europe by the way and what all places around the world have you had a chance to visit? Thanks. :)
P.S.: My old habits of shopping late in the evening was something I should have thought of correcting. The restaurants are not so bad although everything is expensive. I would have to be careful not to express my surprise at the prices of some of the familiar foods. As far as closing times are concerned, I can understand and sympathize to some extent their earlier closing times. I was frustrated at first and thought that the only reason eateries would be open a little later was because of tourists. On the other hand, having a "Walmart" type store open 24/7 would mean the beginning of the slippery slope towards pushing working class Europeans into longer working hours like the US and China. I don't think we would want that.
Jennifer, how marvelous that you had such opportunities to see the world and stay with relatives. What a span, from France to Russia to South Africa! Can I be jealous? I'm jealous!
I recently read Rick Steves' "Travel as a Political Act". I think you would love this book. It isn't one of his "how to get a good travel deal" type manuals. It's a book about traveling outside our own country to get some perspective on our presence in the world, to see the "American dream" in light of the dreams of people in other countries, and to take those experiences home and use them to make our own home land a better place. It's a very uplifting book.
To answer your question, I've been to Europe many times. I spent my junior year of college in France, and have been back a few times since. France is my soul's true home. I've visited many western European countries (but I never made it to the UK either), Mexico, Costa Rica, eastern Canada, Caribbean islands and a lot of the US. I love to travel, but all the phoney invasive airport security crap, and the piss poor service provided by the so called "legacy" airlines, are keeping me home more lately.
Jealous? Come on Bliss. This is only my first time and 3 months is nothing compared to your life time experience outside of this country. I still felt that I needed more time to settle down in each country to get a more accurate perspective but that will have to wait. I sincerely hope that people my age and younger will have opportunities to get to know the world around them rather than getting stuck too virtually. I hear you on the "security" and bad service issues. I am also worried that Peak Oil could come faster which would mean less opportunities to visit the other hemisphere or for that matter just outside the country. Local can be good but being too cooped can get depressing.
I would simply say you forget how small the rail systems are in European countries and how big our country is. Also how convoluted many of their road systems are.
Our rail infrastructure is still here, its just old.
I personally loved using the trains in Europe and there are areas where it can be used. In the Northeast for instance. Lots of commuter trains, but they don't pay for themselves. Those trains are subsidized by the rest of the country.
Gas guzzlers are appropriate in some areas and many don't guzzle as much energy as a new Prius or Hybrid. The arrogance of some Europeans is unfounded and if you take it point by point most are simply wrong. They will be laughing out the other side of their mouth before this is all over. Thats my opinion. Its like going to Paris and only seeing the Eiffel Tower, not the squalor in the poor areas or the homeless. The Mona Lisa but ignoring the grafetti that is everywhere or the vast chronic unenployment.
If you take my state we have vast stetches of country with towns spread in many different areas. Take a European rail system from any country and superimpose it over Texas and see how well you think it would work. And then try and figure out how to add all the lines and stops you would need to provide the same service in the same timely manner they do.
The result will be that the service would be slower than Christmas and the difference in cost between their existing system (if you could start with it here) would bankrupt the EU.
What works in one place, won't work in another. Even within our borders, what works well in one state may not work at all in another.
"Lots of commuter trains, but they don't pay for themselves. Those trains are subsidized by the rest of the country."
Of course it takes taxes to pay for the infrastructure but looking at the costs compared to the USA, our metro system is a joke and not even DC or NYC can match Europe. Plus our tax dollars are wasted for endless wars and occupations along with spoonfeeding Wall $treet when even a tiny fraction of that money could go towards making our public transportation system a hell of a lot better. It costs less to subsidize public transportation in Europe than in the USA and yet their quality is better. On the other hand, Big Oil and Auto are oversubsidized. I may be relieved that my new job is only 20 miles away from where I live instead of 45 miles but boy would I love to see the rest of the St Louis suburbs get expanded and improved public transportation at reasonable costs.
"Take a European rail system from any country and superimpose it over Texas and see how well you think it would work. And then try and figure out how to add all the lines and stops you would need to provide the same service in the same timely manner they do."
Ok, I could start there. Perhaps rural TX is out but let us concentrate on the rural and suburban areas. Those areas are where most people live and that is what needs to be targeted. When I was riding the trains in Europe, I was surprised that at no time would a train stop in the middle of somewhere with a stupid "We will be holding for a minute or two" delay announcement. I asked the folks about that and they never heard of it. Asked to explain how the metro system works in the USA, I summarized my experience in St Louis along with those of others who reported to me their experiences in metro in the rest of the big cities in the USA and I was greeted with horse laughter !! Yes, I do believe that just like uninformed Americans have no business trashing and mocking Europe that Europeans shouldn't go too far in laughing at us. However, this country continues to sink so low shamelessly that I feel like I am a total loss. Maybe I will be better prepared to face embarrassing questions about our dysfunctional country at large the next time I go but we will have to face our weaknesses glaring before us.
It seems logical that lower birth rates and lower productivity would go hand in hand, and I think it's just a neocon myth that you have to keep up birth rates to maintain your standard of living. In Europe, as here, people come from other countries to take the jobs that western European birth rates allegedly do not support. Western Europe has always had immigrants from Eastern Europe looking for work, at least from the very early 20th century. If immigrants there and here were treated with respect, put on the books and allowed to pay their fair share into social programs (instead of getting papers with the social security numbers of dead people), there would be no problem.
I resent that social security is considered government welfare here, when only workers and their employers fund it. Our government steals from it.
Being open 24 hours costs double the staff, double the utilities, double everything. It's the never ending upward spiral of productivity, spending and consumption that is unsustainable, not social democracy.
But I do agree that Americans are too accustomed to our gluttonous lifestyle to ever favor mass transit over personal cars (even if our government ever did end its petro-centric subsidy patterns). With the giant oil slick heading all over the place from the Gulf, I still see cars wrapped around the fast food places, in line for the drive-thru. It really hasn't been that long since shops closed at 6pm here though. I think anyone could adjust to that.
"It seems logical that lower birth rates and lower productivity would go hand in hand"
That in itself would be correct. The problem is that its not just numbers. I believe that Western Europe has what may be a worse problem of illegal immigration than we do. So far ours is confined to the Southern border states.
They, like some of our states are finding that replacing skilled educated citizens with poorly educated and unskilled workers drains every resource and leads to huge and growing deficits. You cannot continue a society where the takers outnumber the providers. Thats a simple historical fact.
I have never heard of immigrants in our country being mistreated as a rule. Illegal immigrants on occasion certainly ( you should see what some of these bastards do), but thats inherent in their situation as cannon fodder for our corporations.
"I resent that social security is considered government welfare here, when only workers and their employers fund it. Our government steals from it."
Amen!!!!!!!
"Being open 24 hours costs double the staff, double the utilities, double everything. It's the never ending upward spiral of productivity, spending and consumption that is unsustainable, not social democracy."
I do take your point on that. I think we are "open" too much myself. But business has been allowed to back the American worker into a corner with the aid of corrupt unions and government. If the average worker weren't having to put in overtime everyday just to keep their job, perhaps we could close earlier. All the retail stores used to be closed by 9:00 when I was growing up. Didn't seem to hurt us.
As to our consumptive lifestyles, it wouldn't hurt any of us to make do with less...and I believe we are about to have to. I would also say as to mass transit, it simply isn't practical as a primary mode of travel in many parts of our country. Cities could with no trouble put it back. In Dallas when I was growing up you hopped on the electric trolleys on the main streets and could go from one end of town to the other with no problem.
"I have never heard of immigrants in our country being mistreated as a rule. Illegal immigrants on occasion certainly ( you should see what some of these bastards do)..."
You spew a lot of nothing, and you creep me out.
Regarding language: Liberal, progressive, social justice, empathy, have all been demonized. Why not call it Mother Teresa and find out how long it takes to demonize her? Can't win the language battle against Beck & Limbaugh.
I find this polling doubtful at best. First, as Bliss pointed out, people's understanding of socialism in this nation is very limited. They know nothing about the beauty of socialism in Europe. Additionally, they mock Europe as being "too socialist" even when it is far from it. Europe is a mixture of regulated capitalism and socialism, neither of which the US cares to espouse. This brings me to another concern about the poll on capitalism because there needs to be a distinction on the US-based disaster capitalism vs capitalism elsewhere that is generally the tame version.
P.S.: With the way the economy throughout Europe is getting turbulent, prepare for the cornfed electorate in the US to blame socialism for Europe's woes. Even the Obamabots will still defend Obama making silly excuses such as "If Obama goes socialist, then the Republicans will attack him !". Ask many of them what they really think of capitalism and they will fall into the Clinton/Raygun ballpark. They will also believe in the corporate media lies that the economy is turning around when the disaster has only begun with attempts to keep it swept under the rug as much as possible !
Well said. These types of push poll's are worthless.
Europes problems stem from domestic commitments that cannot be kept, but also from the same bankers and financial community in Europe that was in the fraud and theft business up to their eyeballs with our bunch.
This is going to be paiful in any case, including here.
"Europes problems stem from domestic commitments that cannot be kept"
We need to discuss that some more so that we can clear up some misunderstandings of Europe. I went through your replies but when you talk about Europe, CA, and NY suffering because of their own problems mainly, what is it that you are referring to that you believe was their own problems? I understand that those places are not rosy either and I will slowly acknowledge more of the minuses in Europe and Russia in the days ahead relative to the articles posted. I promise not to bite.
Look forward to it.
I will try and pick one thing at a time to illustrate what I mean so we don't get confused by a everything at once. And when I say Europe, I am referring only to the European Uninon and will try to say so or use EU to be clear.
"I promise not to bite"
Thank God! I bleed easily. :)
Try to discover how apostrophes actually work. They aren't for plurals, as in "push poll's", and they are indicated for possessives, as in Europe's, not "Europes", which means more than one Europe. You know, simple things like that, that hyper-educated guys like you should have learned in the 4th grade.
"I find this polling doubtful at best. First, as Bliss pointed out, people's understanding of socialism in this nation is very limited."
There are many reasons for this, the corporate media and the status quo politicians for example. I have to say though, a good portion of the fault for this is the socialists themselves. Socialists lead many of the workers movements of the past. They were active in unions and worked on various educational outreach programs to organize and educate the working class. Where are many of us but in groups preaching to each other, or scattered around with little central coordination? This at a time when capitalism has been on a decades long rampage throughout the world and leading to declining living standards even in the capitalist center!
The power of "socialist" ideas though is stong, if there is any hope it is in that. A large percentage of the US is in favor of, for example, universal health care, yet neither political party or the media is for it. They both are openly against it, as are the AM army of right wing goons. For an idea to be attacked, and at important times ignored, with no dominant group fighting for it in the national arena, to have such strong support says something about the strength of the idea itself. If only the left got off their ass and organized, educated and agitated like they used to, if they stopped putting their faith in crook politicians and representative democracy alone without direct participation in decision making, imagine what could be done.
RE: For an idea to be attacked, and at important times ignored, with no dominant group fighting for it in the national arena, to have such strong support says something about the strength of the idea itself.
Great point!!! To me that is what is revealing about the Pew poll where socialism scored as high as it did.
As for the "left [getting] off their ass", they would first have to decide who are their enemies and who are their friends. The Democratic Party has been very skillful in corralling left movements. The largest parts of the anti-war movement essentially folded up shop to support Kerry and Obama in 2004 and 2008 respectively - and got nothing for it. The left needs to cut itself off from the Democratic Party - their real enemy. As you noted elsewhere, studying the work of radical leftists of the past can tell you a lot. Rosa Luxemburg wrote scathingly (and prophetically) of the danger of the reformism of the social democrats (comparable to our Democrats) who supported, and were supported by, the German capitalists. The crushing of the radical left by the SPD (social democrats), lead to the rise of Nazism (see Chris Harman's "The Lost Revolution: Germany 1918-1923").
If you are not familiar with it, I highly recommend Lance Selfa's "The Democrats: a Critical History".
It has been a breath of fresh air to read your posts!
Polls, schmolls ! The only way people will understand socialism is to place a moratorium, 10 years minimum, on capitalism and allow socialism to take its place. Let's see that happen first before taking another worthless poll.
Of course, Americans are as anti-capitalistic as any
other people -- sometimes they simply don't know it.
Taxpayers understand that they are supporting capitalism
and the CEO lifestyle while getting ripped off by "too
big to fail" corporations flaunting their criminal
behavior.
If this wasn't a hugely liberal nation then corporations
wouldn't need to own our "free press" -- wouldn't have had
to buy our government and our elected officials -- run
expensive right wing propaganda campaigns. But they do
have to do those things.
Further, they desperately work to keep labor divided and
to destroy unions -- the next up is the teacher's union.
The core of capitalism is exploitation of nature -- natural
resources, animal-life ...
and even other human beings according to various myths of
inferiority.
Capitalism/business is a distraction for people who don't
understand that Nature is All --
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
The greatest problem facing mankind are people disconnected from Nature. Advancements in genetic research have proven the Native American concept of One: all life is interconnected. Animals and trees aren't just our friends, they're family.
The relentless media/propaganda blitz does suggest desperation.
Good words from a person with a conscience, but hey, give us guys a little credit. After all, it is a joint effort.
RE: Of course, Americans are as anti-capitalistic as any other people -- sometimes they simply don't know it.
I think this is a very perceptive comment. Within capitalism, the majority get screwed.
If you are working in a dead-end job, you have a pretty good idea of how things work, you may not call it capitalism, but you know that you're on the losing end. In capitalism people and nature just represent commodities to exploit for profit. If the real characteristics of capitalism were all honesty laid out and put to a democratic vote, it would never win. You are right to bring up liberalism as well. Liberalism is form of capitalism that uses the language of revolutionary thought: equality, democracy, and justice to gain popular support for a economic system that produces the exact opposite: inequality, plutocracy (or concentrated power) and egregious injustice.
You did a helluva job on the mammon thread and you should be commended for that work. CD would be wise to sign you up as a columnist.
In regards to liberals, I'll dredge this issue up once again. I think I tried to deal with it in a Hedges thread when there was a "kill the liberals" run of articles here on CD.
Historically, the word liberal was the opposite of conservative. During the French Revolution, monarchists and conservatives were attacked by liberals. Many heads rolled. This was a great time in human history. It ushered in an era where monarchies have become mostly titular in nature. Our own revolution was led by liberals who had to deal with many monarchists/conservatives within the colonies. FDR, the greatest liberal president this country has seen implemented a number of socialist programs.
Around 1980, the right in this country began a full fledged assault on the word liberal. Like socialism, they have made it a dirty word. Faced with this full frontal assault by the corporate fascist forces in this nation, the left once again ran off with their tails between their legs. They ceded the word and now there are "progressives" instead of "liberals". When the corporate owned MSM in this country figures out a way to make "progressive" a dirty word, I suspect everyone will run off and find a new word to call themselves.
Today, the waters are sufficiently muddied past the point of no return. The economic liberal, mostly right wing conservative capitalists will often claim their "liberalism". This has led to the rise of the neoliberal who is surely the most despised animal on the planet from the left leaning point of view. Tomorrow, we'll have a "progressive tea party". They will incrementally attack minorities and women and thus their "progressive" nature. A child will read about how liberals staged the French Revolution and sealed the fate of the world's monarchies and they'll think of Milton Friedman and William Kristol. What a deal.
I can't say I am fond of this Orwellian wordsmithing. I am not certain I agree with your definition of liberalism.
RE: terminology
Many political terms have different meanings in different contexts, time periods and within different groups. Personally, I like the term "liberal" when applied to ice cream - that's my bias. But more seriously, this is a much more complex subject than fits this forum. But here's my short version:
Liberalism, as I see it, comes from the classical economists like Smith and Ricardo who were supporters of capitalism but believed that the ideas of the Enlightenment must be respected or capitalism was just another tyranny. Basically, I think (like Marx) that the humanistic checks, necessary to tame capital would always prove ineffective. If you haven't guessed already I'm an anti-capitalist. If Liberalism means supporting the interests of capital, then I am opposed to Liberalism. If it means something else, well, we can talk about it...
I have said before on other posts, it would be worthwhile to define our terms before entering a discussion. There's a lot of vitriol that could be avoided here on CD if people were simply using the same definition of a word.
In my experience people don't know what capitalism and socialism means -- they think that working and being paid for your work is capitalism, when actually capitalism means getting money for just having money and grafting of the workers, and not having to work for it. I tell people I support socialism because I think that, generally, people should work for their money. I've also told people that I support socialism becasue capitalism is for those who have the capital and socialism is for all the people, and while not everyone is rich eveveryone is a person. This gets into that whole 'capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich" line of argument.
This is a core talking point where the words and concepts have been perverted by the capitalist propaganists -- but I'm not sure if that will be readily reversable using the words which have now been embedded in so many people's mind; the language has been stolen. Maybe terms something like 'corporatism' vs 'peoplism' are needed?
Socailism is the idea that guys A and B have the right to determine what's needed by guys c-z . The idea is cute, but since real socailism will always lead to massive corruption it's not workable . Capitalism is getting paid for putting your money in the right place, heck look at all the rich who went broke after the dot com bust. Socialism is based on the falsehood that mega super government controlling every will be better then having to find your own job.
It wouldn't hurt to have some sweedish style social programs though, and this could be done without any new taxes, just a modest 30% reduction in defense spending.,,