this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2025
79 points (98.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

8414 readers
303 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
yogthos@lemmy.ml
pangyuehung@lemmy.ml
79
What Americans think about socialism and capitalism, according to a new Gallup poll (apnews.com)
submitted 1 day ago by pete_link@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

top 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Well if you’re only polling Democrats, the poll isn’t giving you any real understanding. The actual socialists have been methodically and intentionally pushed out of the party. And young folks have clearly heard the message, as they have broadly rejected the Democrats in return.

There’s a reason the Democrats are polling even lower than Trump, and that’s precisely because of how many people have embraced socialism. Trying to understand that only within the context of those still with the party is pointless.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

This type of opinion thing just annoys me. When it comes to private vs government control I want a mix. One is just the reality of it. Given property tax land is essentially rented out anyway and given regulations I can totally see it just being recognized as government leases. This would actually be nicer if the terms are fixed so that people don't have to worry about "owning" a home they will then get taxed out of. Then there is that if there is no real competition then we should not pretend private enterprise is the best solution. Without multiple electric and gas infrastructure there is realistically only one option for my utilities. Having several suppliers is just capitalist theater as far as im concerned. Further anything necessary should have a government option be it healthcare or education. Now when it comes to tv's or toys or other stupid crap that is totally fine to be full on capitalist.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Markets can have a place in early socialist development, especially for luxuries like you said, but there's no reason to really keep it when the profit motive overstays its usefulness. It sounds like you'd be a big fan of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, which is similar to what you describe, only with the caveat that the goal is to fully collectivize production in the long run as this becomes more feasible.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

well democracy and civil rights are more important than either socialism or capitalism in a country/government/society. Thats the start to then determine what people want.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Democracy and civil rights are only really achievable when the working class is in charge, ergo socialism is a prerequisite.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social -4 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

I completely disagree.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 hours ago

How much democracy does your workplace have?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 hours ago

You disagree because you're utterly ignorant on the subject you're attempting to debate, and you evidently haven't even spent any time thinking about it.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The state is an extension of the ruling class of society, and will use its authority to oppress the other classes and prevent real change. Under capitalism, this class is the bourgeoisie, ergo the working class is crushed.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social -2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

great pontification.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social -4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social -2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social -1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social -1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

They have all been thoroughly controlled by and for the wealthiest in society. In what manner is this democratic?

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

This is all analysis of what you believe should be the case, but not what is, which is my point.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Its what I believe vs what you believe. You know I said as much when I simply said I disagree.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social -1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago

I just don't see how you can both acknowledge that capitalists have an outsized influence but think the state is impartial.

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

[...] It is difficult for me to imagine what "personal liberty" is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment.

Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible.

— I. V. Dzhugashvili

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social -1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

In a democracy with human rights that liberty that is enjoyed is the states measures to mitiagate the circumstances and if it is not the ability as a member of a democracy to change it by voting, speaking out, protesting, etc.

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

So socialism.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social -3 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

I mean sure if its defined by my comment above but I find people define it in a very different manner. Going way back to my initial comment these things annoy me as I feel most folks do not want 100% socialism (state control of stuff) vs capitalism (private control of stuff) but want something in between. Its the democratic foundations of a country and how well it implements it that will then determine where it goes.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

You probably shouldn't base your understanding of capitalism and socialism on the political compass memes.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 7 hours ago

You have no business attempting to debate this subject, you don't even understand what socialism is. Socialism is a transitional stage when the working class holds power in society, but existing capitalist relations haven't yet been abolished. It has fuck all to do with state ownership.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Only 37% of U.S. adults have a positive image of big business, down from 49% in 2010.

Oligarchist and Corporatist supremacism is the actual evil in what "you" understand as Capitalism, which is effectively supremacy of the wealthy with favourable tax rates that force the rest of us to actually pay for government. Payroll taxes, as an example, is a higher source of revenue than corporate or personal income taxes. The gap between approval of big business vs capitalism is the gap in understanding what is wrong with "capitalism".

Free and fair markets, as defined by founder of capitalism: Adam Smith, is a non-evil social organization principle. UBI is fundamentally compatible with free and fair markets, giving people more power to refuse unfair labour or rental propositions, and to be aware that zionist militarism costs something that could be more cash to them instead.

Yesterday on CNBC, the most zionist, oligarchist, corporatist supremacist media in US, and ADL hosting service, kept up on its zionazi campaign to desperately derail the Mamdami campaign by inviting zionazi pig vermin, Andrew Cuomo, to shout out every delusional fearmongering lie imaginable describing Mamdami campaign. They immediately followed up with 2 of the most demonic sub-human zionazi oligarchist supremacist GOP members to discuss these survey results and boost the Oligarchist supremacist rule of US. Tim Scott, and Vavek somethingindian-swami.

While both portrayed socialism as a system where no one is allowed to make any money, both have chosen career paths that oversea the largest national spending in history of universe, where Tim Scott, has no limit on military giveaways to Israel or anti-China spending. GOP philosophy of socializing costs for privatized profits is ultimate political position for bribery and post-office rewards.

Tim Scott praised himself for the "socialist" success story of being a fatherless public housing survivor. Vivek told us that US 7th graders have same academic achievement as China's 3rd graders, which didn't sound like he was going with the Florida capitalist supremacist solution of forcing children into coal mines, instead of that sweet socialist education investment in a future.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 15 hours ago

Get organized!

[–] Whostosay@sh.itjust.works 20 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

"We have got to get these dang moderates to the polls."

-fucking idiots

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 hours ago

watching videos of dedicated & well regarded communists on tiktok and rednote push for an embrace of american moderates to help push the US zeitgeist to shift their views politically leftwards makes me wonder if they are idiots.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 10 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

You gotta be pretty oblivious to think the current system is working for most people.

[–] GiorgioPerlasca@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 hours ago

Such a view often stems from consuming media that perpetuates the simplistic propaganda of blaming China, Russia, or immigrants rather than examining the system's inherent flaws.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 4 points 21 hours ago

Denialism is ready and cognitive dissonance is unpleasant.