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.
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.
Democracy and civil rights are only really achievable when the working class is in charge, ergo socialism is a prerequisite.
the working class being in charge is no guarantee of democracy and civil rights.
It’s a prerequisite for it.
I completely disagree.
How much democracy does your workplace have?
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.
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 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.
— I. V. Dzhugashvili
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.
So socialism.
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.
It’s socialism when workers own the means of production, not when the state “controls stuff”.
How much stuff? The state already controls lots of stuff, and we don’t have socialism. Aren’t you getting socialism confused with totalitarianism or something like that?
Thats my definition. I have never seen anyone propose or do a socialist system that is just employee owned companies. Regardless I would want the state to still have “social” policies to help those who did not work at a valuable enough company.
What exactly are the “Democratic foundations” of a country? I’m betting the answer is rascist
In most cases the constitution.
You probably shouldn’t base your understanding of capitalism and socialism on the political compass memes.
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.