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.
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.
Holy shit. Americans really are the most propagandized people on earth
This is not propaganda. There were no effective democracies in 1776. You had some limited things like parliaments influence on the monarchy and the swiss cantons and the dutch corptocracy. Like it or not it was the start of something. Granted the world wars was a bigger uptick.
You already demonstrated how propagandized you are, you don't have to double down on it.
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.
Because that influence can and has been entailed. The influence is ultimately advertising. I mean all of that does not matter when im speaking to someone who wants to put the cart before the horse. The state precedes the economic system. The articles of confederation failed precisely because of its economic ruleset and was replaced by the constitution. Democracy and rights are what matter first. They are not afterthoughts.
No, the influence isn't in advertising alone. The state is thoroughly embedded in the private system of production, corporate lobbying and control of industry gives capitalists absolute power in the system. Voting doesn't mean much if the options workers can vote for don't actually represent their interests. Nobody is putting the cart before the horse, democracy in a capitalist system is a sham to begin with. It isn't an afterthought, it's that the extent to which oppressed classes can influence society through voting is only within the boundaries pre-approved by the ruling class.
I disagree.
In other words, you're to ignorant to actually justify your position but to arrogant to change it.
How? Legitimately, how can you see the entrenchment of corporations with government and the massive influence the capitalists have, and think that the working class has equal footing?
Because nuance. You have some statements that when narrow enough defined I can agree with but you then take them to generalities which are just not the case. Yes corporations are bribing to get what they want but they can't exactly get what they want and it does not always work and its not 100% influence. So massive influence yeah but 100% no. Politicians still have to worry about being voted it and the electorate wising up and we still have good politicians that will not vote for horrible ideas because of a campaign contribution. So they spend a lot and try to get a majority on something that favors them and sometimes it works and sometimes it get struck down or reversed. All of this is why our democracy needs to be improved and have been in the past. The gilded age had corporations having massive control of our democracy and laws against monopolies broke them up and reduced that power. That is the type of thing that must be done.
I don't erase nuance. I don't claim that everything is 100% under total, full control, with no chance for anything going wrong. However, ultimately, control is so overwhelmingly weighted in the favor of corporations that what you claim as the middle area between corporate control and worker pushback is frightenignly small.
As for monopolies being broken up, the capitalists never lost control. A lot of worker organizing legitimately did risk revolution, especially in the wake of the Russian revolution and the tremendous gains of the USSR, but the concessions made by capitalists were temporary. There are no real avenues to "fix democracy" in a system designed against doing so. The only avenue is revolution and forcible nationalization of the large firms and key industries.
no idea were you got erase from. As for the last paragraph of course private control of stuff still went on. I mean again this is just, quite frankly, dumb. The first paragraph says capitalists where never completely in contrl and then you are like well capitalists never lost control which would be zero percent. Of course that did not happen. I mean if I we had a capitalist cult person here they would be howling how once we have perfect 100% capitalism then we will get true democracy the way you say once we have 100% socialism we will have true democracy. Have you ever said 100% no, but you do insist any capitalism that has control and thus exists means no democracy. I am not looking to convince you of anything because I know that is not going to happen and you are never going to convince me of anything. As a matter of fact exchanges like these are what give me the worst impression of socialism as a fanatical concept (fanatical as only socialism and not a spectrum of public/private ownership like what folks like me prefer).
You're getting lost in the sauce here. There's no such thing as "100%" in a mode of production, except maybe early tribal societies or a late-stage communist society. If we put an arbitrary percentage on it and say capitalists have 80% control of the state, and workers only 20%, and your solution is just to "fix it" by voting, then that's a lost cause from the get-go. Even if the voice of the working class is non-zero, it's overwhelmingly weighted against.
Thats the point. The argument I got was democracy requires socialism and that does not fly with me. Democracy and decide how much is private vs public. Also the arbitrary percentage is to low for the people. Representatives are still voted in and while a lot of people want to convince the people have no power in the system. They do and if they work toward betterment they can get it.
Democracy can only allocate the mode of production to the extent that the existing mode of production has influence over the structure of the state and the direction its headed in. You also haven't explained why you think the arbitrary percentage is too low for the people, representatives do need to be voted on, but even before they get to that point they are prevetted through the political machine. That's why perceptions of democracy are so low in the west:
See this argumentation of yours is just silly. Its basically current things, especially infrastructure, is influenced by past and future will be influenced by the present. Of course it will be to some degree but that does not mean the direction cannot be shifted. I did not explain why my opinion about something is different than someone elses. There is no answer to that percentage in terms of data. Representatives can be prevented through the political machine but they also can get through despite the political machine and a 100% socialist society will have a political machine. Again I know I won't be changing your beliefs in this and your not going to mine even if you try trigger word responses.
This just circles back to you talking about what should be rather than what is. I'm not saying politics doesn't exist or anything, just that your weighting of the electoral system under a dictatorship of capital as a genuine tool for worker expression is not backed up by historical evidence.
Nope. Im talking about what is. Im saying that socialism is not the cure and capitalism is not either. Its something that is a balance in a society that can otherwise be democractic or autocratic. I have already given historical evidence of reform.
You've acknowledged that capitalists have outsized power in capitalism, and outsized influence. Democracy is necessarily weaker because of it. The example of anti-trust was specific to the conditions of radical organizing in crisis as a way to prevent revolution. When the USSR dissolved, conditions in the US worsened because the capitalists weren't in fear of revolution. You didn't give any examples of reform working, but organizing in crisis.