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.
The US has never been democratic, though. It’s always been a settler-colony in service of the wealthiest, and has cracked down on the working class. Disabled people should be protected, yes, they aren’t a privledged or ruling class. We aren’t really “debating socialism” here, just what needs to be done.
I disagree. The US and EU have been as democratic as has been seen historically. They are far more commonaly democratic as a group than most countries have been now and through history although how democratic each is can vary greatly if only looking within that group.
They have all been thoroughly controlled by and for the wealthiest in society. In what manner is this democratic?
I disagree. The wealthiest have not had absolute control of them. Its most the voting that makes them democratic but the rights are important to.
The wealthiest are the ones that control the parties and the media, though. If candidates are driven by how well their party satisfies the wealthiest, then there aren’t genuine mechanisms of democracy. Further, rights are taken away very easily, writing it down on a piece of paper doesn’t inherently necessitate it will be actually followed.
that means they control this media, which means they are controlling this, which means are conversation is pointless. A statement like the wealthiest control the parties and media is just ridiculous and yes likely most employees and people working and indeed owning them make more than the 50% line for wealth in the country. So as a statement there is really not much to say. Candidates are individuals who can be influenced but money is not the only way. Rights have always been able to be taken away and would easily be able to even in the most perfect socialist system in the imperfect universe. Again we are talking the best we have seen in democracy based on actual things now and throughout history. We should always be looking to improve of course.
There’s a qualitative difference between mass media and a tiny, niche internet forum. News agencies in the capitalist world are dominated by the wealthiest, and parties are beholden to corporate donors and vigorously shamed if they do not toe the capitalist line. Rights can be taken away in socialism, correct, which is why those in charge of the rights of society should be the working class, and not capitalists.
So. I think there are many levels of media and this is close to the lowest in number of participants but my point is the wealthiest do not control all media. They have an outsized level of influence and control but its never going to be 100%. People, which include both the working class and capitalists of which people belong to both groups as its not an either or, should be in charge of rights but they need to be set broadly in the framework and be hard to remove, limit, or curtail. This is why they are put into the constitution which is harder to amend than day to day laws.
This is all analysis of what you believe should be the case, but not what is, which is my point.