By AMELIA THOMSON-DEVEAUX
Updated 11:08 AM EDT, September 8, 2025
Capitalism’s image has slipped with U.S. adults overall since 2021, the survey finds, and the results show a gradual but persistent shift in Democrats’ support for the two ideologies over the past 15 years, with socialism rising as capitalism falls. The shifts underscore deep divisions within the party about whether open support for socialism will hurt Democrats’ ability to reach moderates or galvanize greater support from people who are concerned about issues like the cost of living.
...But Democrats under 50 are much less likely to view capitalism favorably, while the opinions of Democrats ages 50 and older haven’t shifted meaningfully, according to Gallup.
great pontification.
Do you actually disagree with the point, or just the way I said it? If you want me to elaborate, the wealthy, those in charge of the large firms and key industries and thus the real power in society, are the ones that manipulate the state through lobbying, control of the media, etc. Socialism becomes a prerequisite for working class control because the state will never be their true ally when already under control of the wealthiest.
I disagree with the point. Democracy comes first. Socialism/capitalism is not a governing principle it is a resource distribution principle. Rights are a recognition of principles so important that they cannot be ignored simply by having a majority. Separation of powers and checks and balances are also important. I would take a democracy/capitalist society over a facist/socialist but would far prefer a social democracy.
You can't compartmentalize the economy and government as though they are entirely distinct. They are mutually reinforcing, with the mode of production having dominance. The origins of the state came from early class society needing to exert and protect the relations to production, from early feudal societies to other forms. The purpose of the state is to ensure the ruling class wins out in any class conflict.
Secondly, you have some pretty bad dichotomies there. Democracy is only really achievable for the people when the people control production, so socialism. Fascism is capitalism in decay, it isn't removed from capitalism, but is capitalism in its most brutal form when there is genuine risk of collapse of property relations. Finally, social democracy is just capitalism, but with safety nets, and the Nordic countries social democrats uphold depend on imperializing the global south to subsidize their safety nets.
I disagree. How whole economic system is dictated by the government which must start as a democracy. It allows for what is legal or illegal. Once established economic and government do effect each other which is why its important to not have laws that allow for greater influence from one or the other. Democracy will never be achievable when the people control production because the people can only be the people in a democracy. Otherwise they are just individuals and you will always have certain people calling themselves the people controlling production (I will call this resources as I think the term production is to limiting despite a dude obsessing over it and the followers similarly throwing it around like its implies everything). Similarly you will never have a democracy if all resources are controlled by money.
You don't create a society in a lab, it arises from existing conditions. You aren't designing HubertManne-landia and creating it as your perfect society. As a consequence, the state and the mode of production evolve together over time, reshaping and mutually reinforcing each other.
Secondly, the people refers to the working class, the broad majority. It doesn't matter if a billionaire says they're "the people," what matters is if the working class is empowered. I don't know why you're minimizing production, it's how goods are made and resources are distributed, and the manner in which we produce, ie feudalism, capitalism, socialism, etc has dramatic consequences on the form of society we have, government included.
the people is not the working class unless it is. The makeup of the people is determined by democracy. Your first paragraph would apply to you as well as me since you are arguing socialism as the primary objective whereas I am arguing democracy as the primary objective. You say democracy cannot come about without socialism being complete but as you point out it is not created in a lab and they evolve together.
The people being the majority of society. In no society is the working class not the majority.
Secondly, socialism does take into account how society evolves over time. The problems with capitalism leading to intense disparity, imperialism, centralization, etc pave the way for socialism. I'm not advocating for creating a society out of thin air, but revolution and a new state run by the working class that will gradually collectivize production. This working class driven society will be capable of actual democracy because it will be run by and for the majority.
The people should be all of society. Everyone. Disabled people who cannot otherwise work. Everyone. And they drive society through democracy. Im not sure why we are even debating soialism since it already mapps out how it evolves over time regardless. We should sit back and let it happen. Democracy has existed for a long time and the us started a trend for it to be the more common form of government. It can erode though and there must always be vigilance to maximize it along with rights until that time where evolution takes us to the ideal state the prophets tell is to come.
The US has never been democratic, though. It's always been a settler-colony in service of the wealthiest, and has cracked down on the working class. Disabled people should be protected, yes, they aren't a privledged or ruling class. We aren't really "debating socialism" here, just what needs to be done.
I disagree. The US and EU have been as democratic as has been seen historically. They are far more commonaly democratic as a group than most countries have been now and through history although how democratic each is can vary greatly if only looking within that group.
They have all been thoroughly controlled by and for the wealthiest in society. In what manner is this democratic?
I disagree. The wealthiest have not had absolute control of them. Its most the voting that makes them democratic but the rights are important to.
The wealthiest are the ones that control the parties and the media, though. If candidates are driven by how well their party satisfies the wealthiest, then there aren't genuine mechanisms of democracy. Further, rights are taken away very easily, writing it down on a piece of paper doesn't inherently necessitate it will be actually followed.
that means they control this media, which means they are controlling this, which means are conversation is pointless. A statement like the wealthiest control the parties and media is just ridiculous and yes likely most employees and people working and indeed owning them make more than the 50% line for wealth in the country. So as a statement there is really not much to say. Candidates are individuals who can be influenced but money is not the only way. Rights have always been able to be taken away and would easily be able to even in the most perfect socialist system in the imperfect universe. Again we are talking the best we have seen in democracy based on actual things now and throughout history. We should always be looking to improve of course.
There's a qualitative difference between mass media and a tiny, niche internet forum. News agencies in the capitalist world are dominated by the wealthiest, and parties are beholden to corporate donors and vigorously shamed if they do not toe the capitalist line. Rights can be taken away in socialism, correct, which is why those in charge of the rights of society should be the working class, and not capitalists.
So. I think there are many levels of media and this is close to the lowest in number of participants but my point is the wealthiest do not control all media. They have an outsized level of influence and control but its never going to be 100%. People, which include both the working class and capitalists of which people belong to both groups as its not an either or, should be in charge of rights but they need to be set broadly in the framework and be hard to remove, limit, or curtail. This is why they are put into the constitution which is harder to amend than day to day laws.
This is all analysis of what you believe should be the case, but not what is, which is my point.
Its what I believe vs what you believe. You know I said as much when I simply said I disagree.
Your analysis is based on what you said should be the case, but we don't actually have the ability to implement that with the tools laid out for us.
I don't even see your point here. We have not really talked about tools but I bet we don't have really anything to talk about. Let me make this clear. Revolution is not an acceptable tool for change for me and I don't care how much someone else thinks it is totally the tool or whatnot. I bring this up mostly at a guess of what your philosophies tool would be.
Democracy is a tool to best meet the needs of the people. If this isn't possible in a given system, then the tool doesn't work in that system.
As for revolution, it doesn't really matter if you find it personally acceptable or not. It's by far the most successful method of social change in history, and it largely arises out of heightened contradictions, not because anyone individually wants it or not.
I disagree. There is no point in our discussion because im pretty sure you see your opinions as facts and my opinions as opinions. As our opinions have fundamental differences I see no point to this.
I just don't see how you can both acknowledge that capitalists have an outsized influence but think the state is impartial.