
Democrats More Positive About Socialism Than Capitalism (2018) - perfunctory
https://news.gallup.com/poll/240725/democrats-positive-socialism-capitalism.aspx
======
lettergram
I kind of doubt most Americans, especially young Americans can even
distinguish between the two...

This coming from a young American, who tries to understand my cohorts
logic/reasoning. Most have very little understanding of history or even
current events. They just want “free” things provides by government and lower
taxes.

~~~
mort96
What makes you think most young people just want "free" things by the
government and lower taxes? Granted, I don't talk much with regular young
americans, but the vast majority of opinions I hear on the topic seem to talk
more about systemic injustices and the huge issues with seeking exponential
growth above all else. I can't recall seeing anyone ever arguing for both
lower taxes and free healthcare/education/whatever at the same time.

~~~
rayiner
We already have very low taxes compared to countries that offer free
healthcare, education, etc. Young Democrats are under the misperception that
we can pay for all those things without raising taxes on _them_ , just on
corporations and people making over $10 million per year. They don’t realize
what those other countries do to pay for those services.

Our former au pair is a young German lady who previously worked an entry level
office job in Germany. When she tore her ACL, she was able to pay the hospital
and EMT bills out of her own income. Her taxes and mandatory social insurance
payments were also 40% of her paycheck. And although college in Germany is
almost free, she wasn’t eligible to enroll based on her scores on the abitur
exam. She definitely would’ve gone to college in the US, but only about 30% of
German high school graduates enroll in college, versus almost 70% here.

I personally like the German system a lot. I think college is overrated and
that it’s great that in Germany you can graduate high school at 16, do an
apprenticeship, and get a real job with room for growth. But young liberals in
the US seem to be under the view that you can have your cake and eat it too.
They don’t realize that Germany, etc., doesn’t match their vision for the US,
where the government pays for people with average grades to get social science
degrees and put off getting a real job until 25, while taxing entry level
workers next to nothing.

~~~
gremlinsinc
How is paying 8k more for taxes but 10k less on insurance or education not a
win? Yeah you have higher taxes cry me a river your out of pocket spending is
less.

In Roosevelt's day anyone earning 1 million + was taxed at 95%. Basically
meaning all their money went back to the state. It encouraged them to spend it
on business and grow their business holdings.

The big wins come in having a single-payer for health who can say : No we will
not pay $35 to hospitals for a single ibuprofen, stop gouging prices. Or we
will not pay more than $x for insulin - don't like it? We'll end your patent
term for non-generics early so prices CAN go down.

It's that collective bargaining combined WITH the end of insurance salaries.
More money is free'd up for hospitals, and if we can make the system tech-
streamlined, we could save even more. The more we automate the entire stack
the better for the entire billing/management of funds to drs/hospitals.

~~~
rayiner
> How is paying 8k more for taxes but 10k less on insurance or education not a
> win? Yeah you have higher taxes cry me a river your out of pocket spending
> is less.

It may well be a win! I think it is. But that’s not the pitch liberal
Democrats are making. They’re saying “you can have European style benefits,
but you won’t pay European style taxes. The top 1% and corporations will pay
for all of it.” That’s not realistic.

> In Roosevelt's day anyone earning 1 million + was taxed at 95%. Basically
> meaning all their money went back to the state. It encouraged them to spend
> it on business and grow their business holdings.

Roosevelt’s economic ideas were bad and the US and Europe have spent decades
unwinding similar policies. That’s the lesson liberal Democrats refuse to take
away from Europe. The Reagan Revolution happened in Europe as well as the US.
Industries were deregulated, businesses were privatized, and taxes were
lowered. Europe continues to move further to the right.

And Germany, France, and Sweden don’t “soak the rich” as the US tries to do:
[https://images.app.goo.gl/xbVh5c9cXHqfMESx6](https://images.app.goo.gl/xbVh5c9cXHqfMESx6).
They have high but relatively flat taxes on individuals, and moderate taxes on
corporations and capital gains. An in-depth comparison of Germany and US
taxation is here: [https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-
letter/2...](https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-
letter/2017/382). Overall US taxes are about 10% of GDP lower than Germany ($2
trillion). A small part of that difference comes from lower taxes on capital
(23% versus 27% overall). The real difference is significantly lower taxes on
labor, and massively lower taxes on consumption.

If we moved to a German tax system, it wouldn’t “soak the rich.” Capitalists
would see their taxes go up a little. Labor and consumers would see their
taxes go up massively.

------
ed_balls
How does one ask this question? "Do you support that the means of production,
distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a
whole?"

~~~
atomi
Not when the cost is competition. Competition is a primary motivator. The lack
of competition is what causes stagnation and other issues with consumer abuse
in my opinion.

------
harimau777
Some observations:

As other commenters have pointed out, the terms socialism and capitalism are
very broad. However, the fact that small business and entrepreneurs are viewed
positively and big business is viewed negatively (at least by Democrats),
suggests that people are primarily upset about corporate capitalism and want a
form of socialism that addresses it.

The fact that both big business and the federal government are both viewed
negatively suggests that American socialists are concerned about the power and
negative impact of corporations but, contrary to what conservatives tend to
assert, don't want a centralized system run by the federal government. I
wonder if policies could be developed that are tailored to this specific
approach to socialism?

~~~
sundaeofshock
Richard Wolof speaks of this and suggests the answer lies in democracy in the
workplace via worker owned co-ops.

[https://www.rdwolff.com/socialism_and_workers_coops](https://www.rdwolff.com/socialism_and_workers_coops)

------
blackbrokkoli
This is a really biased line of asking question.

It compares the existing system with an hypothetical system. Means, people
will project their current suffering onto the former while projecting their
hopes and dreams on the latter. This screws the results _in a major way_. If
this proves anything it is the profoundness of the "grass is greener on the
other site" effect.

Also, I don't think casting a plethora of political, social and ecological
phenomena onto some kind of hypothetical binary switch is gonna provide any
valuable insight. Also also, especially in the US "socialism" is used to
describe things that an European would see as some kind of base condition,
like affordable dentists, while it's also serving as the description of the
politics of thoroughly fucked up countries. This gives the word very little
substance.

I'm a bit disappointed that this kind of "here are some numbers: 36, 1, 0.64"
kind of article gains this much traction on HN...

Edit: grammar

~~~
harimau777
Isn't it also possible that the opposite would happen? That is, people would
oppose the new system because they fear change?

Perhaps both are true. I don't know if these stereotypes are actually
supported by data, but it seems like we tend to expect young people to be both
more idealistic/naive (depending on your perspective) and open to change.
Similarly, the very terms 'progressive' and 'conservative' refer to the degree
to which they advocate change.

~~~
blackbrokkoli
I mean, maybe. My point isn't really that one system is prone to "win" here
but rather that the whole thing is very much armchair science.

------
brbrodude
Given socialism = European social-democracy, in which the economic system is
capitalist. It doesn't make sense, except for the guy who's very above the
water(or very ideologically inclined), to be against worker rights, vacations,
maternal leave, public health system, not having tonnes of people living in
misery and in general trying to prevent economic power to takeover democratic
power... So, anyway... If you strip the charged ideological rhetoric & all the
fear and uncertainty and get back looking at reality as it is. It's painfully
obvious the American system could use some reform. I don't think much is gonna
happen though, not without insane levels of friction, economic and real power
just have a lot of weight and a lot of cards to play(a problem that could be
mitigated with more actual democracy, but TBH I think it's a lost cause & pure
idealism to talk in this terms).

~~~
gremlinsinc
Actually before Bernie even lost in 2016, I had an inkling he'd lose, so would
Clinton, Trump would be a lame duck with enough power to upset a lot of people
including a lot of Republicans, but the biggest power he has is stirring up
the rest of the country to give a shit. I also predicted a progressive would
be president in 2020 - verdict is still out on that but it's never been more
likely in my 39 years.

Trump is like a natural Reichstagg fire to kick us in the ass and start
looking inward and making changes. I'm optimistic that in the next 10 years
many of these programs will be implemented (especially as automation picks up
and jobs start disappearing by millions).

------
josteink
If you by “socialism” mean “European model” and not the 100% pure Wikipedia-
definition of socialism (just like I expect “capitalism” has a reasonable
interpretation too)...

What do you expect? They’ve grown up seeing the increasing failure and
corruptedness of American corporatism and global capitalism.

Of course they will be drawn to something different!

What would be interesting is to see what young Europeans who has grown up with
“socialism” answers when asked the same.

Will their experiences with the failures of socialism cause them to come up
with the opposite answer?

------
purplezooey
Democratic voters seem to be focused on not voting. If they could increase
turnout by even 5% we wouldn't be having a lot of these discussions.

------
AlexB138
> The question wording does not define "socialism" or "capitalism" but simply
> asks respondents whether their opinion of each is positive or negative.

I wonder how defining the terms would change the outcome. I've found that most
laypersons simply equate Socialism with Welfare.

That aside, this is an interesting split happening in America. I know it's
mostly impossible, but I would love to understand the origin of this shift. I,
personally, have to believe a lot of it has to do with our complete inability
to fix healthcare in this country. I'm firmly in the pro-capitalism side, but
even I have to admit at this point I'd take single payer over our current
Kafkaesque nightmare.

~~~
rayiner
Re: welfare, the attitude is also borne out of misconceptions on the left
about what “socialist” European countries actually are like. The American
left, especially the younger generation, is strongly anti-corporate. Places
like Sweden are not anti-corporate. The Nordic countries all do well in the
Heritage Foundation’s economic freedom index:
[https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking](https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking).
The top capital gains tax rate in Sweden is 30%, lower than California. The
corporate tax rate in Sweden and Denmark is 22%, about the same as under
Trump’s tax law. The countries are also highly deregulated. Denmark recently
got rid of its version of the FCC. The Nordic countries never had the
equivalent of Glass-Steagall, and on several key dimensions their financial
systems are less regulated than in the US:
[http://webhome.auburn.edu/~barthjr/papers/The%20Repeal%20of%...](http://webhome.auburn.edu/~barthjr/papers/The%20Repeal%20of%20Glass-
Steagall.pdf) (see p. 19; note that the article is written in 1997 in
contemplation of the repeal of Glass-Stegal, which had not yet occurred). Most
passenger rail in Sweden is run by private operators over publicly owned
track:
[https://www.cerre.eu/sites/cerre/files/161206_CERRE_PassRail...](https://www.cerre.eu/sites/cerre/files/161206_CERRE_PassRailComp_CaseStudy_Sweden.pdf).
(While DC is complaining that WMATA isn’t being run as a “public service”
because it won’t run massively money-losing late-night trains, and the Union
is fighting the plan to have part of the silver line operated by a private
company, Stockholm’s metro is completely operated by MTR, a Hong Kong
corporation.)

Nowhere in Western Europe can properly be described as “socialist,” not even
“socialist life” after the 1980s and 1990s when states went on a massive
privatization binge. They’re capitalist democracies where heavy taxes on
individuals (especially the middle class) are used to fund a broad welfare
state.

------
JanSt
These things often come and go in waves.

Socialism is a very strong but diverse set of policys. For Europeans like me,
free healthcare is not part of socialism, while in America it is often seen
so.

That said, socialism sounds great on paper, but put in practice, we have seen
that taking over the means of production by force and distributing them
somehow (that's real socialism) does not work as intended, so force has to be
used to keep the system running. Most young people lack the historical context
to understand that good intentions can have bad consequences. As of today, no
socialist system worked. It's safe to say that all of them had good
intentions. To me, this seems to be a good argument against socialism (but not
against things like free healthcare!).

------
xanamander
The sentiment is understandable, if you’re a young person just starting your
adult life. Capitalism rewards early adopters, and we’re basically in the end-
game globally, with most of the capital already concentrated in the upper
echelons of power. It would be easy to see that as a fundamental disadvantage
if you’re buried under student debt, with no hope of entering the over-
inflated housing market, for example.

The advice of the older generations that have prospered under the current
economic regime no longer seems to hold true for most young people, so can you
blame them for their doubt?

------
black_puppydog
As an outsider, the framing of this question as a (false) dichotomy really
looks like the strongest selling point of (US flavoured) capitalism.

It seems like y'all over there have been taught for multiple generations now
that it's either the status quo or [GDR|USSR], and until very recently, nobody
seemed capable of (openly) speaking of anythibg going _beyond_ this limited
range of settings.

~~~
futureastronaut
...why are you using "y'all" if you're not American, let alone from the south?

~~~
black_puppydog
Seriously? I play "you have all been taught to reflexively not talk about
that" and you reflexively counter with "you used a funny word there"?

Thanks for making my poibt I guess... FYI I'm not only not American, I'm also
not a native English speaker. Why not ask me outright how I dare appropriating
your precious language by using your words at all?

------
AndrewDucker
Of course, without a definition, and with "socialism" covering a wide range
from "social democracy" to "full on communism" this finding doesn't tell us
much more than "More Research Needed".

Good to see that more Americans are realising that unchecked capitalism isn't
doing them any good though.

~~~
xwdv
Unchecked capitalism has brought us some really great products that make life
easier and more enjoyable, while becoming cheaper in price over time as
companies race to the bottom. I’d say that’s pretty good.

------
nabla9
And both camps stopped evolving around 1960. Exceptions are fringe.

What is called 'capitalism' changed every few decades until it froze after
Milton Friedman. Friedman's negative income tax proposal (effectively very
similar to UBI) was already too radical.

The 'socialism' froze around the same time to the baby boomer era Social
Democracy that worked actually quite well in industrial society. It has no
answers to post-industrial problems. Except in cases where capitalism is
overshooting.

Eventually there will be change, but it can't be framed socialism vs
capitalism. See for example:
[http://radicalmarkets.com/](http://radicalmarkets.com/) and Common Ownership
Self-Assessed Tax (COST).

Intro to radical markets: [https://paulrberg.com/post/2018/12/24/radical-
markets/](https://paulrberg.com/post/2018/12/24/radical-markets/)

~~~
klntsky
> [http://radicalmarkets.com/chapters/uniting-the-worlds-
> worker...](http://radicalmarkets.com/chapters/uniting-the-worlds-workers/)

> We propose a Visas between Individuals Program (VIP) that would tie together
> the interests of the working classes of rich and poor countries through
> sponsorship of visas and sharing of the gains from migration. Because every
> citizen would benefit from migration, rather than just the wealthy or those
> in cosmopolitan cities, migration would move from being one of the most
> divisive issues in wealthy countries to a widely popular source of growing
> middle-class income

So a person giving some immigrant a visa will have the option to cancel it?
This type of relations between individuals will surely result in abuse.

~~~
nabla9
As said in the book. The US already has similar program, J-1 visa program
allows Au pair, EduCare, Interns, trainees to work in the country.

------
rayiner
People who were at most 1 when the Soviet Union collapsed prefer socialism.
You don’t say.

------
Grustaf
I suspect that this preference is purely theoretical...

~~~
tacosx
Judging by the massive growing homeless encampments everywhere I don't think
it's really theory anymore. Where I live they have started drilling into trees
to set anchor points for clotheslines down by the river, and even have setting
up semi-permanent shanty structures out of scrap 2x4s and plywood. TB is a
common problem. Everyone bathes in the river.

The USA is looking more and more like Brazil or Saudi Arabia every day. Great
times for a select few, shantytowns (or concentration camps) for the rest. At
some point that breaks down, regardless of how much you spend on police.

~~~
Grustaf
The US is in many ways a third world country, but I don’t think many young
people actually know or would prefer actual socialism, as experienced by
hundreds of millions of Chinese and Eastern Europeans.

------
sys_64738
My observations are that kids think it's cool to be socialist. Possibly from
how they see capitalism not working for them.

------
baq
they've seen what capitalism does to a country. the greed, the shareholders vs
workers struggle, the banksters, they're all good reasons to not like
capitalism.

what they didn't see is what a centrally planned socialist economy does to a
country. i'd like to invite them to a trip around eastern europe and post-
soviet republics and 'republics'.

------
black_puppydog
This thread just reads like one collective allergic reaction. Y'all have been
well trained. Two thumbs up for capitalism!

~~~
AlexB138
Yes, those who disagree with you are trained and you have the one truth. How
very convenient.

~~~
black_puppydog
It's great, actually :) But seriously, I think these stats are mostly
surprising/interesting because education and public discourse have pretty
systematically prohibited any opinions of the sort to be publicly voiced,
often with very express force of the state. So yeah, I'd call that (bad)
training.

------
perfunctory
Could somebody explain why the title of the post changed? How does that work?

EDIT: the title of the article is indeed "Democrats More Positive About
Socialism Than Capitalism". But what I found most interesting is the second
table which shows "Views About Capitalism and Socialism: by Age" (overall)

~~~
sctb
A moderator reverted the title from “Young Americans (age 18-29) prefer
socialism to capitalism (2018)” to that of the article (as the guidelines call
for). It's up to readers to decide what they find most interesting.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
umadon
Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez socialist? I got a bridge to sell you...

------
Tepix
The question is:

Which of these problems:

\- Corruption in the government

\- Lack of affordable healthcare

\- Expensive universities

\- No social safety net

\- Problematic privatized prison system

\- Pollution

could have been avoided with more socialism? If the obvious answer is: "most
of them", then i can't blame them.

~~~
jeltz
I would say "probably yes" to all of them except the corruption. I have seen
little evidence that socialism reduces corruption.

------
Kaotique
Young people are more idealistic about how the world should be but less
realistic on how the world really is. Over time life experience and
responsibilities like work, family and a mortgage will creep up on you and
slowly swing you to the safe world of moderate capitalism and conservatism.

Yesterday on the news it was said that the Green parties in Europe have the
future because half of the young voters (18-25) voted for progressive parties,
but they forgot that in 5 years they will all be at the age of starting a
family and will vote much more conservative.

------
bmmayer1
This is not evidence of any trends or tailwinds behind socialism in the long
term. The exact same cohort will change their minds over the next 40-60 years.

Historically, young people always prefer socialism, because they tend not to
have a firm idea of what capitalism is, or how they benefit from it. They are
still learning how the world works and what their place is in it. They are
more prone to utopianism and idealism. This generation, in particular, has no
historical knowledge of the great human cost of socialism to the billions of
people who, in the last century, suffered under socialist regimes.

Hence the well-known quote that no one can definitively attribute[1]: "A young
man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart; an old man who is a socialist
hasn't got a head."

[1] [https://katecarruthers.com/2005/02/11/alleged-quote-by-
churc...](https://katecarruthers.com/2005/02/11/alleged-quote-by-churchill-on-
being-a-socialist-or-conservative/)

~~~
thiago_fm
I think your point is good. But I think young americans are flirting with
socialist ideas mainly because US average income has flattened for decades,
and a lot of inflation has happened in between.

With all the uber/temporary employment and lack of unionisation. People start
to look at socialism, not as a counterpoint to capitalism, but the
marginalisation of many in society.

I, for instance, understand and believe in Capitalism, so as I do in
Socialism. I'm in a very privileged position in society, with everything I
need in terms of compensation, career etc. But I can't close my eyes to how
everybody around me is suffering even to find a real job.

For many Americans, they would be better off by using a travel machine and
being on the workforce in the 70's. Which tells me that they feel left behind,
and of course, they will want a solution, which socialism "seems" to offer. At
least in the short term. They get things for free. And forget that one must
have worked for that thing to be created.

If society doesn't work in a way that people are able to produce and create
things, as it currently is for many americans, they will defend whatever
systems that tells those people that *ism will fix their problems.

In the very deep end, I think Americans haven't changed much. They want to be
able to conquer their own future, the American Dream is still alive, but how
society is organised in America very much suck for most young Americans.

What all Americans don't want to admit is that the US isn't as important
anymore. Other countries are catching up and that will make US even poorer in
relation to them.

Lately the only real product that the US has been selling is the dollar, and
this won't last. The country must adapt to a new reality, which the eyes of
many doesn't want to see.

~~~
bmmayer1
That's fair -- there does seem to be a term conflation here. Socialism in the
modern usage in the USA, amongst young people at least, tends to refer to
'democratic' socialism which is more like highly regulated capitalism on the
Western European model. People who tend to support socialism are really saying
they want more unions, single payer healthcare, more regulation, etc.

And that's very different than historical socialism which looks more like
Venezuela than Denmark.

~~~
phoobahr
Which is why, to first approximation, anyone outside of the US views your
mainstream progressive as hard right and your right-of-center as fascist.

~~~
bmmayer1
If by "anyone outside of the US" you mean "anyone living in Western Europe"
then yes...I think you underestimate the deep conservatism of many, many high-
population countries from Russia to Brazil to the Philippines to Nigeria.

~~~
phoobahr
I'm Canadian and I've lived in South America and South East Asia. I've
travelled elsewhere rather extensively.

In my experience, no need to point out that it's not universal, the US is the
only place that worships the profit motive whilst aspiring to fascism. Lots of
places have those things by de facto argument but nowhere else does
conservative thought mean desiring a state where these things come as a
secondary consequence if not a primary motivation.

Let alone while being championed as freedom(tm). The US is a very strange
place; perhaps the one metric it is most exceptional. I've met, lived & worked
with and admired many American people. I can appreciate the American
experiment and ideals. It's just too bad what those Americans do in the name
of those American ideals that seems so very.... unamerican.

~~~
bmmayer1
> the US is the only place that worships the profit motive whilst aspiring to
> fascism

This is such a red herring and quite impossible to argue with.

