Political Animal
Blog
Pew’s out with one of those surveys about how Americans perceive various ideological labels or concepts, and it’s mostly the usual stuff (you know, more people like “conservative” than “liberal,” mainly because a lot of “liberals” like to think of themselves as “moderates”). It’s good to see that despite Glenn Beck’s best efforts to demonize the term, “progressive” has a very high positive/negative ratio of 67/22.
The really interesting findings are about current perceptions of “capitalism” and “socialism.” Overall, capitalism is favorably regarded by Americans by a 50/40 margin, as opposed to a 31/60 rating for socialism. Even OWS supporters are more positive towards capitalism (45/47) than socialism (39/52).
But look at the age breakdowns. Americans between the ages of 18-29 narrowly have a negative perception of capitalism (46 positive, 47 negative), but are positive towards socialism by a 49/43 margin. Could it have something to do with their current life prospects? Nah, they’re probably just hippies going through a phase.
If it sticks, though, politics could be interesting by the time Sarah Palin gets the Republican presidential nomination in 2024 or so.
Facebook
Twitter
T2 on December 29, 2011 5:29 PM:
Ed, I'm sorry to have to say this.....but Palin's attraction to the typical Tea Bagger is, quoting a FOX TV exec, because she's "hot". She ain't gonna be " hot" 14 years from now. She'll be an old lady that smells like salmon.
c u n d gulag on December 29, 2011 5:53 PM:
T2,
Smelling like salmon would be an improvement...
As to to post:
Color me skeptical, because I firmly believe that the majority of Americans have no better chance of defining Socialism than they would have of explaining Quantum Mechanics.
Maybe if pollsters gave reasonably neutral definitions of Socialism and Capitalism, I'd respect those, or any other, results.
As is, it's like asking, Which do you prefer for dessert?
Chocolate ice cream, or vulture sh*t?"
exlibra on December 29, 2011 7:15 PM:
Agree with gulag; Americans -- especially the right wing ones -- have no clue what "socialism" is. They figure it has to be something nasty, since it's being thrown around as an epithet. But as to what it looks like, in practice? They wouldn't recognise it, if it came up to them bearing their Medicare card.
As for: [...] a lot of “liberals” like to think of themselves as “moderates”... DOesn't matter what you're seing yourself as, what matters is how others see you. From my mid teens through early twenties, I considered myself a balanced, reasonable (and reasoning) moderate. But according to my country's standards, I was if not a full-blown, then verging on being a radical capitalist reactionary. That was Polish People's Republic. I came here with my world-view essentially intact. But, even life-long Dems consider me a "flaming commie". Go figure.
Rich2506 on December 29, 2011 7:36 PM:
Perhaps because I grew up in the 70s, I have some appreciation for what socialism/communism actually is. Not that, being an antiglobalist (Late 90s philosophy, Indymedia is full of us), I think capitalism is a wonderful system, but it works in a way that communism doesn't. I still remember that when the Soviet Union made shirts, there's no objective criteria for an attractive shirt. There are two ways to handle this problem. Capitalists just take several models of shirts, put them all on display and let the customer choose. Commies decide in a committee which shirt is attractive. It got so bad that finished Soviet shirts were literally less valuable than the raw cotton was (Which completely contradicts Marx's theory that its the workers who make something valuable).
harpo on December 29, 2011 7:42 PM:
what's ows?
[To answer your question: OWS=Occupy Wall Street. --Mods]
idlemind on December 29, 2011 9:25 PM:
I wonder what the chance is that socialism is even understood by most respondents? Or that 95% of the time what is labeled "socialism" in the US is nothing of the sort?
chi res on December 29, 2011 11:59 PM:
there's no objective criteria for an attractive shirt
And I guess corporations making the cheapest shirts possible and selling them for the highest price possible to parents of gullible teenagers who simply have to have anything that the latest celebrity tells them they should have is "objective criteria".
Yeah, right.
Perhaps because I grew up in the 60s, I think your analysis is full of shit.
RalfW on December 30, 2011 12:12 AM:
It could be that for some youngsters, hearing that Obama is a soshulist over and over - and they like Obama - has them thinking "I'm with O. I'm a soshulist!"
Hey, why not? Oligarchical capitalism and/or Randian dystopia looks like it's gonna be a really raw deal for the under 40 set.
exlibra on December 30, 2011 1:50 AM:
Capitalists just take several models of shirts, put them all on display and let the customer choose. Commies decide in a committee which shirt is attractive. -- Rich2506, @7:36
Nope; you still don't know what communism/socialism is (and never mind that there's a vast difference between the two). That shirt *is* attractive because it's the only one available, and I'm glad to be able to find it in the first place. Also (and too) it's wonderful, because I can afford it.
deejaayss on December 30, 2011 3:48 AM:
Socialism is defined as worker control of the means of production. You work in a factory, you and your fellow workers own it. You vote on how the work is done and how the product is produced and sold.
With the exception of a few co-operatives, socialism is almost never tried. State or regional co-operative groups as an economic force to influence the government appear from time to time, but cannot seem to compete with the power of centralized wealth.
Socialism as tried in Socialist Republics, seem to repress input from workers and remove democratic control of the government from workers through single party hierarchies.
Intentional confusion about the definition of socialism is rampant. Conservatives believe that big government is socialistic if it redistributes tax dollars to others. Most conservatives I talk to are against unions and the minimum wage. In general they are anti-worker and side with "management" and the few that "own" the means of production. They seldom see the concentration of power in Wall Street as a problem as long as they receive a dividend.
Liberals seek government modifications to a market system to provide a level economic playing field and social services for the less fortunate.
Neither group advocates that those who work should own the means of production.
zandru on December 30, 2011 10:23 AM:
So, there IS a moderator!
Now, Mr. Mod, could you please remove that commercial spam, above? Thanks!
"integrable dminuffi", Captcha advises. I got one of those for xmas; nice & warm!