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
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      24 hours ago

      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.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          23 hours ago

          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.

          • HubertManne@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            23 hours ago

            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.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              ·
              23 hours ago

              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.

              • HubertManne@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                23 hours ago

                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.

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

                  You don’t create a society in a lab, it arises from existing conditions. You aren’t designing HubertManne-landia and creating it as your perfect society. As a consequence, the state and the mode of production evolve together over time, reshaping and mutually reinforcing each other.

                  Secondly, the people refers to the working class, the broad majority. It doesn’t matter if a billionaire says they’re “the people,” what matters is if the working class is empowered. I don’t know why you’re minimizing production, it’s how goods are made and resources are distributed, and the manner in which we produce, ie feudalism, capitalism, socialism, etc has dramatic consequences on the form of society we have, government included.

                  • HubertManne@piefed.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    5
                    ·
                    23 hours ago

                    the people is not the working class unless it is. The makeup of the people is determined by democracy. Your first paragraph would apply to you as well as me since you are arguing socialism as the primary objective whereas I am arguing democracy as the primary objective. You say democracy cannot come about without socialism being complete but as you point out it is not created in a lab and they evolve together.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      23 hours ago

      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.

    • […] It is difficult for me to imagine what “personal liberty” is enjoyed by an unemployed person, who goes about hungry, and cannot find employment.

      Real liberty can exist only where exploitation has been abolished, where there is no oppression of some by others, where there is no unemployment and poverty, where a man is not haunted by the fear of being tomorrow deprived of work, of home and of bread. Only in such a society is real, and not paper, personal and every other liberty possible.

      I. V. Dzhugashvili

      • HubertManne@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        23 hours ago

        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.

          • HubertManne@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            23 hours ago

            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.

            • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              46 minutes ago

              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?

              • HubertManne@piefed.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                21 minutes ago

                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.

            • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              Its the democratic foundations of a country

              What exactly are the “Democratic foundations” of a country? I’m betting the answer is rascist

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              23 hours ago

              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.