Socialism

New Poll Asks Why People Support Socialism and Capitalism

Of those who reported a negative view of capitalism, 20 percent say it's exploitative or corrupt.

|

The Pew Research Center published a poll in June that found that 42 percent of Americans have a positive view of socialism and 55 percent have a negative impression. 65 percent of respondents expressed a positive view of capitalism, while 33 percent were either somewhat or very negative.

This week, Pew published new data exploring the ideas that inform those views.

Of those who dislike socialism, 19 percent said it makes "people too reliant on the government for support" and "undercuts people's initiative and work ethic." As one 53-year-old man put it: "I believe in individual freedoms and choice. Socialism kills incentives for people to innovate and climb the ladder of success." A 38-year-old woman told the pollsters that capitalism "gives people freedom to profit from their own labor….It has risen more people out of poverty and gives people the opportunity to change their social standing with hard work and ingenuity."

Meanwhile, 18 percent said socialism has "failed historically," citing Venezuela and Russia as prime examples. A decent-sized portion of the respondents—17 percent—claimed "it is not consistent with democracy in the United States or is simply not right for the U.S."

Of the roughly four in 10 Americans with favorable opinions of socialism, about a third (31 percent) said "it will result in fairer, more generous society." Pew notes that "this includes 10% who specifically express a belief that it is important for the government to take care of its citizens or for fellow citizens to care for each other." (Needless to say, socialism is not the only system in which citizens can take care of one another.)

Of those who reported a negative view of capitalism, 20 percent argued that it is exploitative or corrupt, while 23 percent pointed to unequal distribution of wealth. Some people said that the system works for the few, not the many.

Interestingly, Pew found that "Republicans, in particular, viewed socialism and capitalism in zero-sum terms" while Democrats were more likely to have positive impressions of both. Given some of their critiques of capitalism, this makes sense: Those with "negative views of capitalism (8%) mention that corporations and wealthy people undermine the democratic process by having too much power in political matters" while 4 percent suggested that "capitalism can work" but more regulation is needed to curb its excesses. Some socialists in the poll pointed to Nordic countries, such as Denmark and Finland, as models to emulate. Those countries are actually rather pro-market—Finland, for example, has a lower corporate tax rate than we do.

The best arguments for capitalism are that it has lifted millions out of poverty around the world and—though the respondents here don't seem to have mentioned it—allowed people to decide for themselves what they value and what type of life they wish to pursue.

Advertisement

NEXT: Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.


  1. Republicans, in particular, viewed socialism and capitalism in zero-sum terms” while Democrats were more likely to have positive impressions of both.

    How could you possibly have positive impressions of both?


    Those with “negative views of capitalism (8%) mention that corporations and wealthy people undermine the democratic process by having too much power in political matters” while 4 percent suggested that “capitalism can work” but more regulation is needed to curb its excesses.

    Oh, I see now. Logically fallacy and conflating regulation with socialism. Especially amusingly, ‘wealth people having too much power in political matters’ is only about a billion times worse in socialist nations.

    1. The Scandanavian nations, the most prosperous, free, stable, and happy on earth, are a hybrid of capitalism and socialism. All the programs for which Democrats are called “socialist,” such as universal healthcare, free education through college, a robust welfare state, and strong worker’s rights (including sitting on the board of directors) are established facts of Sweden , Norway, Finland, and other social democracies, and yet rather than admit that sociallism, if indeed it is defined by the programs it promotes, is wildly successful in these nations, leads critics to deny they are socialist.
      This is hypocricy and BS. Even the conservatives in these nations protect the socialist programs…….they are so popular and successful. These programs were all pushed through by democratic socialists and now are not even opposed by the conservatives.
      Here are the social programs: an elaborate social safety net, free education and healthcare (funded by taxes, as the democratic socialist Bernie Sanders would do), public pension plans (like Social Security), robust labor rights and power with “system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labour and employers negotiate wages and labour market policy mediated by the government,” and a mixed economy with both private and state planned enterprise.
      This is not capitalism; it is not socialism: it is democratic socialism, or since it is less based on ideology than social values (equality, etc) and best practices, best called a universalist welfare state, or simply, a social democracy, since it incorporates socialist programs with democratic institutions.

      To say these nations are not socialist is as absurd as to say they are not capitalist: they are a hybrid of the best features of both, and they have produced the most successful societies in history.

      1. Yes…it’s called social programs born from the wealth of Capitalism that are slowly eating away at the golden goose. Add to that the fact that these moocher countries rely on the US for military and innovation and yeah, you’ve got the perfect Utopia..until it collapses under it’s social programs. It’s easy for a thief to look wealthy while he robs people of there wealth…until the people he’s robbing run out of wealth.

      2. They’re also some of the most homogeneous nation’s around…you might wanna run that through your unicorn calculator.

      3. they have produced the most successful societies in history

        Debatable. They have generated nowhere near the innovation that has come from the US. And without the military and economic support of the US, all 3 would almost certainly have subsumed by the USSR as was Eastern Europe (and for the same reasons, their socialist proclivities).

      4. The Scandinavian nations (I assume you mean Norway, Sweden, and Denmark? Because those are the Nordic states, unless you actually want to include Iceland and Finland) are not socialist.

        They are high-tax capitalist societies with strong social welfare programs. They are actually MORE capitalist than the US at this point, because of the ever-extending regulatory state here. Aside from the taxes, they have better protections for private property.

        They deny being capitalist. Their government denies it. Their economist deny it.

        But hey… I’m sure you know better.

        1. Hey Toranth, you said, “They deny being capitalist. Their government denies it. Their economist deny it.” Didn’t you mean “They deny being *socialist*?”

          1. Oops! Good catch. Yeah, probably too many beers. Sorry.

            The Nordic states deny being *socialist* and describe themselves as capitalist.

      5. You’ve also got to realize the entire populations of all of the countries you mentioned is roughly the same as the combined populations of los Angeles and new York city. So the social service demands/eligibility for that entire region are about the same as only the 2 largest American cities. That’s why these social services can work in these places, the demand and density of demand are much more spread out. And they’ve got far more land and resources to exploit and profit from to help fund these things than denser American populations

        1. Also almost 100% wypipo.

    2. We’re talking about people who have no idea what the systems are. Of course they can have nonsensical views about them!

    3. IMHO, All systems where wealth come from power are worse than ones where power comes from wealth.

  2. Capitalism, exploitative and corrupt? Whoo, boy, wait until they get a taste of socialism.

    Of course, 20% of those with positive views of socialism said they like it because “it builds upon and improves capitalism”. So I’m not sure of how much thought went into these answers.

    1. they like it because “it builds upon and improves capitalism”

      Without being able to cite a single example of that ever having occurred throughout history.

    2. The wealthy, free, and happy Scandinavian nations, which American democratic socialist say they want to be like, have tasted socialism: free healthcare, free college through grad school, universal welfare, labor as a participant in corporate management….these are the programs that have proven so successful in Norway, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, et al and which are the core of democratic socialism.

      1. Socialism is always successful, until it’s not, you dunce. That’s the sad, sorry history of Socialism.

      2. Wealthy? If Sweden were a US state, it’s residents would have a lower income than 40 US states. If you use PPP, it’s poorer than all but 6 US states. It’d be roughly the same as Mississippi!

        That “Free college” cost the average Swede somewhere between 3 to 5 times what it costs an average American to get a degree, because the Swede will pay for other’s education… year in and year out, over and over again.
        As for health care, well… the US has better survival rates in almost every category, dramatically so in the #1 and #2 killers: cancer and heart disease. At the same time, the average wait for treatments in Sweden (assuming they are available) in between 4 and 10 times longer.
        As an example, prostate surgery: In the US, the average wait is less than 28 days. In Sweden, it’s almost 250.

        Happy, though… sure enough, the Swedes have the US beat there. They report being happy at rates dramatically higher than US residents.
        So… go, Swedes! You feel great about yourselves, and that is something to be proud of. Have a gold star sticker.

        1. Of course they’re happy Denmark is the largest user of anti depressants in the world.

      3. Again, you listed a bunch of countries that wouldn’t exist today if not for US capitalism. We saved them from the nazis and the russkies, who were both… Wait for it…

        Socialists!

      4. Finland, and i think several other of these nations, also require mandatory military service at 18. I’d imagine that saves a lot of money on recruitment and the associated infrastructure the military has for it in America.

        And i bet the residents of Cali would just jump at the chance of forced military service to offset the cost of some other government program.

      5. Not enough time has elapsed to make judgments about the long term impacts of the Scandinavian model. Denmark is raising the social security age to 73 because the system is going BK. And let’s see what happens to citizens’ work incentives when generations have been weaned on a boatload of freebies.

  3. Those with “negative views of capitalism (8%) mention that corporations and wealthy people undermine the democratic process by having too much power in political matters” while 4 percent suggested that “capitalism can work” but more regulation is needed to curb its excesses.

    So the problem of people having too much power in political matters can be solved by giving more power to the government? Really?

    How fucking retarded do you have to be to believe that?

    1. “Our chickens are being taken by a red furred beast. We must give extraordinary powers to Sheriff Fox to put a stop to these evil deeds.”

      1. That would be a Redd furred beast.

    2. I have had numerous arguments with people, and it always comes down to “If you just regulate smarter, you will keep those evil corporations from controlling politics.”

      1. “If you just regulate smarter…”

        Translated into plain English:

        “If you just do things the way I think they should be done.”

        1. Screwed up the italics. Too bad there’s no preview function, I guess.

          1. In the perfect world of socialism, a preview function would be completely unnecessury.

            1. In the perfect world of socialism, the posting process would preview you.

              1. In an even more perfect world of socialism, both the articles and comments would be provided free of charge by the state news agency.

    3. How is “undermining the democratic process” inherently bad? I mean if the “democratic process” is really just whatever the mob says today, it might not be bad to undermine it a bit.

  4. Confirming yet again that people do not know what the definition of socialism is.

    1. Ain’t that the truth.
      To those on the left, “socialism” means Denmark.
      To those on the right, “socialism” means Venezuela.
      In reality, it’s neither.

      1. It is Friday. Jeffy needs to troll for enough attention from the commentariat to keep him from committing suicide over the weekend.

        Don’t put your head in the stove, Jeffy! Nobody is going to find you for a few weeks and methane is eleventy billion times more potent as a greenhorn gas than CO2. You might inadvertently take the entire planet with you. Think of the Gretas!

        1. To think that you actually expended valuable energy to type that worthless comment.

          1. To think that you actually expended valuable energy to type that worthless comment.

            LOL! That is exactly what I was thinking when I responded to your comment!

            Trolls gotta troll, right?

          2. Nothing more worthless than Pedo Jeffy, and the drivel he posts here.

      2. Real socialism has never been tried, right cytotoxic?

        1. Real socialism has been tried plenty of times. It’s called “the traditional family”. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” pretty much sums up Ward Cleaver earning money to pay for the needs of the Beaver. The problem is that pure socialism doesn’t scale well. Ward Cleaver being the authoritarian head of a nuclear family may work fine for them, but it doesn’t work well for a Ward Cleaver to be the authoritarian dictator of a nation of millions of people.

          1. That and the crushing of individual rights for the sake of the collective.

            Slavery fits into the description of “from each according to their ability to eat according to their need.”

            So work as hard as possible to deserve only what I need? Yeah, you can go fuck yourself, Because my ability is worth a lot more than that.

      3. In reality its both. Denmark just doesn’t have a Chavez yet. But Italy almost did recently with Berlusconi. And were only 70 years removed from half that continent having their version…hitler, Franco, Mussolini.

        And that’s one of the main issues with socialism. It doesn’t always lead to dictators, but it’s thee main pathway that has been used throughout history for men to become them. Any socialist leader is only a few nationalizations away from controlling the entire economies of their country.

      4. It’s both. Where the government controls the proceeds of the means of production, they own the means of production, in a de facto sense.

        Granted, Denmark is more mixed than Venezuela, but the U.S., regulation and government spending included, is about 50% socialist.

      5. And people like you are deluded enough to think that being like Denmark is actually a good thing.

    2. The thing is, if the government owns the proceeds, they own the means of production de facto.

  5. “The best arguments for capitalism are that it has lifted millions out of poverty around the world and—though the respondents here don’t seem to have mentioned it—allowed people to decide for themselves what they value and what type of life they wish to pursue.”

    This decision is far too important to be left up to the individual. Only a benevolent, all-seeing, all-knowing government can shoulder such a responsibility.

    /prog.

    1. /prog

      Prog & Toad Go Camping with the Uighurs

      The worst children’s book ever.

      1. Not if you want to sell it in China, it isn’t…

  6. “Of those who reported a negative view of capitalism, 20 percent say it’s exploitative or corrupt.”

    Let’s not forget that you can;’t even get conservatives to fully support capitalism.

    1. Capitalism is a piece of shit. It’s just the lesser of all possible pieces of shit. You can have rule by a corrupt oligarchy with the military enforcing its imperatives, or you can have rule by a corrupt oligarchy with the central bank enforcing its imperatives. The latter is marginally preferable to the former. But it’s a tallest dwarf contest.

      1. EVERYTHING IS SO TERRIBLE AND UNFAIR!!!!!!

        Haha

      2. No, it’s actually not. But you are…so that’s a twist.

        1. “I know you are but what am I”. A quite fitting retort for someone whose ideology amounts to a bumper sticker.

      3. Capitalism prohibits the initiatory use of force so no one could force anything.

        1. Tell the Vietnamese or the Iraqis that!

          1. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
            October.12.2019 at 12:17 pm
            “Tell the Vietnamese or the Iraqis that!”

            Yeah, to fucking lefty ignoramuses, both of those are ‘capitalist’ economies.
            Dot you have to be stooopid to be a lefty, or do you brains fall out after you become one?

        2. Capitalism prohibits the initiatory use of force

          No, it doesn’t. Libertarianism – or at least some utterly pretended variation thereof – prohibits the initiation of force. That’s because libertarianism is a political system. Capitalism is an economic system. An economic system is agnostic on initiation of force for the very obvious reason that the initiation of force is not an economic question. You wish to substitute a more defensible proposition for ‘capitalism’. But capitalism is not a blank canvas on which to project all of your ideals. It’s a functional and operational economic system. While it is theoretically possible to have your ideal of libertarian capitalism, capitalism has never in reality been practiced since it was explicated by Smith and Ricardo in any country without a central bank and functional government.

          1. “…An economic system is agnostic on initiation of force for the very obvious reason that the initiation of force is not an economic question….”
            Non sequitur.
            An economic system may well require a certain political system in which to function: commies *require* a dictatorship. Similarly, capitalism requires a certain freedom to function.

            “…While it is theoretically possible to have your ideal of libertarian capitalism, capitalism has never in reality been practiced since it was explicated by Smith and Ricardo in any country without a central bank…”
            Regardless of any theory, capitalism existed in the US and the early US absent a central bank. That lack may limit the size, but not the fact.

            “…and functional government.”
            Hint: Don’t move the goal posts.

      4. “…or you can have rule by a corrupt oligarchy with the central bank enforcing its imperatives…”

        If you invent enough strawmen, you can make any argument work.

        1. Central banks are a strawman? But your fictional world where capitalism exists in the absence of central banking or possibly even government is the model we ought to work off of?

          1. Read your stooooooooopid comment again:
            “…central bank enforcing its imperatives…”

            Central banks rarely have guns.

            1. They have lots of paper, and envelopes. You ever get a nasty paper cut? Especially one on the tongue from licking envelopes?

              That shit hurts. Central banks are dangerous.

              1. So’s the post office, until they switched to the self-adhesive stamps.

      5. Capitalism is a piece of shit.

        Capitalism is a term invented by socialists to denigrate every economic system other than its own. It’s meaningless; it doesn’t stand for any consistent ideology. I think it was stupid for conservatives and free market advocates to embrace the term “capitalism” because leftists keep engaging in equivocation. You’re doing it yourself below, posing a false dichotomy between a corrupt socialist system and a corrupt system based on central banking.

        You can have rule by a corrupt oligarchy with the military enforcing its imperatives, or you can have rule by a corrupt oligarchy with the central bank enforcing its imperatives. The latter is marginally preferable to the former. But it’s a tallest dwarf contest.

        Yes, both of those are corrupt. But neither of those is a free market system. Central banks are a leftist, progressive institution intended to manipulate the economy while enriching a small group of plutocrats. I.e., you’re posing a false dichotomy.

        In free markets (“free market capitalism”), which classical liberals, conservatives, and libertarians advocate, there is no central bank; money is issued privately and governed by market forces just like any other good or service.

        1. Capitalism is a term invented by socialists to denigrate every economic system other than its own. It’s meaningless

          The term originated with socialists, but it is anything but meaningless. It describes an economic system wherein the means of production are privately owned and investment is by capital accumulation. You’re overcomplicating the term in order to muddy the waters so that you can defend some pristine yet completely theoretical laissez-faire free market that has never existed and will never exist. Even the people who described, modeled and formulated market economics going back to Adam Smith and David Ricardo and following up to Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek supported some form of central bank. Privately issued money is anything but a fundamental element of laissez-faire, let alone the more nebulous (and yet less fictional) term ‘capitalism’.

          1. The term originated with socialists, but it is anything but meaningless. It describes an economic system wherein the means of production are privately owned and investment is by capital accumulation.

            I.e. it describes pretty much every economic system other than socialism.

            You’re overcomplicating the term in order to muddy the waters so that you can defend some pristine yet completely theoretical laissez-faire free market that has never existed and will never exist.

            No, you are muddying the waters by deliberately lumping together all alternatives to socialism under the term “capitalism”.

            Even the people who described, modeled and formulated market economics going back to Adam Smith and David Ricardo and following up to Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek supported some form of central bank.

            Ricardo was critical of the Bank of England, and Smith viewed central banking as a way of simplifying transactions and guaranteeing payment; neither (to my knowledge) supported anything like the idiotic, plutocratic policies that go under the term “central banking” today.

            Both Friedman and Hayek were strongly opposed to the Federal Reserve and wanted to abolish it.

            Privately issued money is anything but a fundamental element of laissez-faire, let alone the more nebulous (and yet less fictional) term ‘capitalism

            You keep using weasel words and nebulous terms like “laissez-faire” and “capitalism”.

            The simple fact is that central banking, government control of the money supply, and government control of interests are all incompatible with free market economics. It is those government policies that lead to corruption and plutocracy.

            And there is nothing theoretical about operating an economy without these kinds of corrupt and plutocratic institutions: many countries, including the US, operated for a long time without them.

            So, you pose a false dichotomy when you say that the two choices we have are (1) socialism, (2) capitalism with a central bank. There is a simple third option: (3) free market capitalism without central banking.

            1. And there is nothing theoretical about operating an economy without these kinds of corrupt and plutocratic institutions: many countries, including the US, operated for a long time without them.

              This is a good point NOYB2. Look at the US historical record though, and it is hard to say that the economy writ large was really any better lacking a central bank or Federal Reserve. Meaning, I don’t see any real difference in the number of boom/bust cycles with ‘economic management’ (e.g. The Fed, Central Bank) as opposed to their not being present.

              The practical limitation I see to adopting a truly ‘free market system’ is the high percentage of unethical actors (private, government). A true ‘free market’ system necessarily depends on honesty, transparency, and a free exchange of value for value.

              You know, the sentiment that Winston Churchill expressed regarding democracy probably applies here too. Capitalism is a terrible system, but it is less terrible than all the others. 🙂

              1. This is a good point NOYB2. Look at the US historical record though, and it is hard to say that the economy writ large was really any better lacking a central bank or Federal Reserve.

                I think the historical record is clear: the US was doing much, much better.

                Meaning, I don’t see any real difference in the number of boom/bust cycles with ‘economic management’ (e.g. The Fed, Central Bank) as opposed to their not being present.

                Actually, the boom/bust cycles have gotten worse with the Fed. More importantly, though, even if there were no significant difference, that alone would be reason enough not to grant this monopoly to anyone. After all, the justification was that things would improve greatly, yet the Fed has failed pretty much at any of its objectives.

                The practical limitation I see to adopting a truly ‘free market system’ is the high percentage of unethical actors (private, government). A true ‘free market’ system necessarily depends on honesty, transparency, and a free exchange of value for value.

                Quite the opposite: a true free market system recognizes that people are greedy and dishonest, and it provides the only known mechanism for dealing with that greed and dishonesty, namely individual liberty and choice. Government, on the other hand, is the delusion that you can put honest and transparent people in charge of greedy and dishonest people.

                You know, the sentiment that Winston Churchill expressed regarding democracy probably applies here too. Capitalism is a terrible system, but it is less terrible than all the others.

                Both “democracy” and “capitalism” cover many possibilities.

                Possibiliity 1: social democracy, social market economies, a social welfare system, central banking, and progressivism are democratic and capitalist. That’s a corrupt, authoritarian, and unsustainable system.

                Possibility 2: a constitutional republic with subsidiarity, low taxes, and little regulation is also democratic and capitalist. And that’s a system that leads to wealth, promotes liberty, and promotes a vibrant civil society.

    2. Let’s not forget that you can;’t even get conservatives to fully support capitalism.

      Socialism, progressivism, and democratic socialism stand for fairly identifiable ideologies. (So, for that matter, do classical liberalism and free market economics.)

      “Conservatism” and “capitalism” aren’t well defined; they are basically whatever is to the right of the person using the term.

  7. Socialism = free shit for those too lazy to better their lives.
    It’s kinda like me going to the gym daily after work for the last 40 years to pay for those fat asses medical issues that set home all day and eat pizza

  8. Seems that when it comes to corruption, socialism could run rings around capitalism. Sure, corporate bosses can be corrupt, but it catches up with them because all it takes is for a competitor to take less and give a little more to customers and stakeholders. But a party boss has zero competition. You think some members of the proletariat are going to show him up for having a dacha while they share a crap apartment with two other families? Sure, if they gave a death wish.

  9. Mercantilism is what Adam Smith described at the time of the Revolution. Slaver colonies fed raw materials to an effete warmongering, superstitious Euro-monarchy. This is what Marx’ fans called capitalism and Howells more accurately dubbed “The Accumulation.” Communism and socialism are likewise parasitical, altruistic and entirely dedicated to the initiation of force. So yes they are identical with mercantilism to the tens place. Only Ayn Rand in the first 1000 days of the nuclear era understood the past well enough to draft the non-aggression principle. Voters increasingly understand that the NAP is the path to wealthy peace, and are abandoning both geriatric fossils to cast law-changing Libertarian spoiler votes. It’s no longer a one-dimensional world.

    1. Communism and socialism are likewise parasitical, altruistic and entirely dedicated to the initiation of force.

      In what possible way are communism and socialism “altruistic”?

  10. The poll article at the link is arranged to feature socialism pro and con for the article’s first 2/3. This has the effect of burying the lede, which clearly was that the fraction of Americans who view capitalism positively was a full 2/3.

    The comments in the poll article and repeated in this article were tossed together in a salad that lessened the clarity of what coherence was present in some respondents’ answers. It reminded me of interviews of victims soon after a violent crime, where the victims are hailed as experts, while genuine experts are nowhere on the set.

    The feature of this poll article that’s most of interest is what it shows about the pollsters themselves, and their money men.

  11. Socialists claiming capitalism is too corrupt? My word, corruption is the defining characteristic of socialist states!

    It’s like saying eating red meat is too unhealthy so we should just drink milkshakes all day. Or vaping is hazardous to lung health so we should instead smoke a pack of Camels every day.

  12. “Of the roughly four in 10 Americans with favorable opinions of socialism, about a third (31 percent) said “it will result in fairer, more generous society.””

    Our sincere thanks to the wonderful government education system and the teachers’ unions.
    Terrific job teaching history!

    1. It might also be people getting their Social Security benefits. That’s pretty sweet, hunh slaver?

      1. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
        October.12.2019 at 12:15 pm
        “It might also be people getting their Social Security benefits. That’s pretty sweet, hunh slaver?”

        Yeah, you fucking scumbag, getting back a third of the money taken from me is just terrific!
        Did it take you a long time to come up with such a fucking idiotic statement?
        Fuck off, slaver.

        1. I did a back of the envelope calculation of what I would have from my SS tax if I had just invested it with average returns. I am no Warren Buffet but do better than average. Even with that I would be comfortably retired by now with everything I want.

          At this point would probably do some work anyway but take a less stressful job.

          1. Pretty sure LTAL is the return of commie kid; some pathetic whiner who bailed on his mortgage ( ‘crooked bank’; right ) , thinks Lenin and Stalin were on the right track, and is 35 going on 15.
            Fortunately, HE is going to keep paying and never get a penny back!
            HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!

    2. Terrific job to the guardians of the borders as well.
      The demographic change in America made it possible for socialism to infiltrate society. Let’s be honest, many newcomers and their offspring will have few notions about natural rights, free citizens, freedom of speech, and similar Anglo-Saxon topics.

  13. Bottom line: socialism appeals to the delusional personalities who believe that reality can be controlled by imagining, wanting, and perhaps voting. In other words, wishes will come true if they wish hard (and loud) enough.

  14. Interestingly, Pew found that “Republicans, in particular, viewed socialism and capitalism in zero-sum terms” while Democrats were more likely to have positive impressions of both.

    Obviously Democrats are idiots.

    while 4 percent suggested that “capitalism can work” but more regulation is needed to curb its excesses

    That’s called “fascism”.

    Some socialists in the poll pointed to Nordic countries

    The Nordic countries aren’t socialist. They used to be fairly libertarian. Then they became wealthy and turned into Bismarck-style welfare states; their fortunes have been declining ever since.

    Furthermore, citizens of Nordic countries who emigrate to the US do economically far better than they do in their original home countries even when you correct for education and job categories.

  15. “Needless to say, socialism is not the only system in which citizens can take care of one another.”

    Perhaps the author could elaborated on this more. I like to hear how another system takes care of its citizens. Most real systems today are a blending of capitalism and socialism. I don’t think anyone really wants to live in a pure socialism or pure capitalism. Most of the arguments are in how the systems are blended.

    1. Perhaps the author could elaborated on this more. I like to hear how another system takes care of its citizens.

      Your subtle sleight of hand substituting ‘system’ for ‘citizens’ is informative. Ultimately ‘systems’ do not take care of anyone. There are numerous ways for ‘citizens’, or more generically ‘people’, to take of one another – which is the phraseology actually used in the quote you pulled. Within every ‘system’ from nomadic tribes to totalitarian dictatorship people take care of one another.

      1. The author used “system” in the article, I did not substitute it. I would agree with you that almost any economic system has some way of helping people. That may be external to the system such as a private charity. Or internal to the system by blending in a socialist component like Social Security or Medicare. I think the author was trying to suggest that capitalism takes care of people. It does for the majority of people. But capitalism provides no “safety net” for people. The “safety net” is either external or a blended in socialist component.

  16. What always fails is central planning. No individual or group of individuals can accurately predict consequences in dynamic complex interactions. This is because not only are the planners fallible humans, the actors, millions of people interacting for millions of individual reasons, are also human beings.

    It matters not if you call it capitalism or socialism. We see examples of both. What matters is individual liberty. If you put that as a truth irrespective of the prognostications of wonks then you have a philosophy of government.

    1. Soviet Russia made it to space and industrial superpower on central planning. Ultimately their experiment failed but it’s hard to say that central planning did. The means and methods were abhorrent but the objectives were achieved.

      1. It’s trivial for a dictatorship to extract funds for show projects and the military; all dictatorships do it. Heck, North Korea is one of the poorest countries on the planet, and they have missiles and nuclear weapons. That simply is not a measure of the success of central planning.

      2. The soviets failed because we had the camero, mustang, and Ford trucks. We had Levi’s, Nike, Microsoft, Bon Jovi, and Kroger’s.

        They had the Trabant.

      3. “The means and methods were abhorrent but the objectives were achieved.”

        Including the, oh, 70 million deaths? Are you including that objective?

        1. Well, many of those 70 million deaths were definitely a communist objective. You don’t destroy a social class entirely, kill off a religion, and create a “new man” without radically changing the demographics of a society. Killing the “deplorables” who clung to their land and Bibles was definitely a communist goal in most countries where the movement was imposed.

          1. There were a LOT of Kulaks and hoarders, besides!

    2. Always fails? Except maybe the fastest growing economy over last few decades – China is very government panned. From 5 year plans and SASAC this economy is VERY government controlled. And many enterprises including the Largest banks are state owned.

  17. People are getting frustrated with capitalism because much of it Crony capitalism. Many corporations, through relentless mergers are now wealth extraction machines using monopolistic practices, eg one or two airlines control many markets, many health insurers (and hospitals) have little competition. Another example is how corporations conspired to suppress wages through factory contracts with nafta a free market in labor in offshore factories.

    Another capitalism failure is health services. While many debate how to pay for these services, via private or government insurance, it’s REALLY The LACK OF COMPETITION which is INFLATING PRICE to the current unafordability because of barriers to entry for physicians, nurses etc and onerous licensing. Many American have to compete win third world wages while much of the medical services they receive face little to no competition.

    Many are seeing that markets are more and more rigged instead of free. And with increasing automation, VAST swaths of jobs are no longer needed and the concept of trade of services is starting to be questioned. Will the law of supply and demand work with fewer remaining employed and so many idled workers? Those throwing the socialist moniker on all our ills are missing the many instances of crony capitalism how occurring in the USA.

    1. Unemployment rate in US is 3.5% the lowest in 50 years.

      1. Pretty soon white people will even be picking strawberries.

    2. People are getting frustrated with capitalism because much of it Crony capitalism.

      And rightfully so: crony capitalism is bad. But then they vote for the very people who are rigging markets, namely progressives and democratic socialists, based on the same delusions you obviously suffer from.

      Another capitalism failure

      You’re not listing failures of capitalism, you’re listing failures of government: bad trade deals, bad tax policy, fiscal and monetary policy, bad regulations, creating barriers to entry, etc.

      1. None of which is capitalism at all.

      2. This is wrong. A total lack of regulation will get you a monopoly which is a failure of capitalism! Vast consolidation In many industries in he USA gives companies monopolistic or oligopsonistic power supplying goods/services AND in the pricing of labor.

        1. This is wrong. A total lack of regulation will get you a monopoly which is a failure of capitalism! Vast consolidation In many industries in he USA gives companies monopolistic or oligopsonistic power supplying goods/services AND in the pricing of labor.

          That’s wrong. The only monopolies that have ever persisted for any amount of time were government created. Free markets simply don’t allow monopolies to exist.

          1. Seriously? OPEC cartel has had pricing power for decades. De Beers had control for decades. Standard oil , Att, American tobacco all changed by the antitrust laws.

            The only monopolies that few complain about are the govt regulated utilities.

        2. Tonto
          October.13.2019 at 7:38 am
          “This is wrong. A total lack of regulation will get you a monopoly which is a failure of capitalism!”

          Bull
          shit.
          Cite or STFU.

    3. Please just call it cronyism, as it isn’t really capitalism at all. Associating capitalism with cronyism just hurts our cause.

      1. Any -ism taken to extremes hurts people. Take you for example, a clear case of fucktardism taken to the extreme. Libertarianism is almost by definition the endorsement of capitalism taken to its extremes. And then all the inevitable problems (monopoly, cronyism, depressions) you hand-wave away as No True Capitalism.

      2. Using the term “capitalism” hurts our cause, because it’s a socialist term to describe any economic system other than public ownership of the means of production.

        The correct term for what we want is “free markets”; it’s not even an -ism, because it’s not a political ideology. The corresponding political ideology is classical liberalism or libertarianism.

    4. Agreed with your assessment. Another problem we have in the US is tax policy that tends to favor the wealthiest. These policies tend to cause capital to be sequestered. Capitalism works best when capital is free to move through the system. Tax breaks for middle class would likely provide better movement of capital.

      1. The idea that America’s wealthy and/or high income earners pay low taxes is bullshit. The only income group in the US that even pays more in taxes than they consume in government services is the top 20%. The US middle class is paying extremely low taxes already. And we don’t want “movement of capital”, nor do we want increased consumer spending.

        What the US needs is higher middle class taxes to balance its budget, and eventually it ought to get rid of capital gains taxes altogether, tax consumption, and then lower income taxes across the board in order to encourage capital investments and discourage consumer spending.

        1. No middle class paying more taxes than many wealthy now, unless you exclude the taxes that many wealthy pay like Medicare and social security.

          What we need are wealth based taxes, similar to real estate taxes, that will prevent a lot of the special interest gaming income-based taxes. Also consumption taxes like VAT will hurt consumption and is one reason high VAT economies underperform.

      2. “Another problem we have in the US is tax policy that tends to favor the wealthiest.”
        Lie.

        “These policies tend to cause capital to be sequestered.”
        Lie.

        “Capitalism works best when capital is free to move through the system. Tax breaks for middle class would likely provide better movement of capital.”
        Bullshit assumption from a two-lie premise.
        Good going!

  18. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money tehn come and join us.

    CLICK HERE►► Aprocoin.com

  19. Obviously when you younger you definitely vote for socialism. As you get older and more experienced you probably lean to capitalism. There are many other factors obviously. But whatever vote you may have I would suggest you to read Karl Marx’s works. That really gives you a clear picture of socialism and how realistic or fairy-tale it is. I also have written an article about it. https://peachyessay.com/blogs/who-is-karl-marx/

  20. Interestingly, Pew found that “Republicans, in particular, viewed socialism and capitalism in zero-sum terms” while Democrats were more likely to have positive impressions of both.

    Interesting in the sense that it’s not remotely surprising, considering the fondness Republicans have for black-and-white thinking. In my day we just called it stupidity.

    Since nobody’s ever successfully implemented a fully private-sector-based society or a fully socialist one, try as they might’ve, people are being asked about things that don’t actually refer to the real universe. You can’t have a market of any scale without a public sector. The question is dumb, you people are dumb, and you should shut up while smarter people try to fix all the problems your stupidity has caused. But you won’t.

    1. Well, Tony, you have proven one thing: you’re dumb and you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    2. “Since nobody’s ever successfully implemented a fully private-sector-based society”

      No, and you don’t need ‘fully’; it’s easy enough to observe trends.
      Check Hong Kong and the PRC for the years 1949 to 1989. In the extremely doubtful chance you have two brain-cells, you might learn something. Hint: Hong Kong became one of the wealthiest nations, will tens of millions starved to death under a soccialist dictatorship.
      And, ditto, you might stop posting lies, idiotic comments, and beating strawmen to death.
      Fat chance, shitbag; fuck off and die.

Please to post comments