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.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      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 [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

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

        • HubertManne@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 day ago

          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.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 day ago

                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?

                • HubertManne@piefed.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  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.

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    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.

              • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 day ago

                In other words, you’re to ignorant to actually justify your position but to arrogant to change it.