The capitalism vs socialism debate was settled in the 1980s, and so was the value of free enterprise. It is odd that the debate should keep being brought up...
However, the terms should also be clearly defined in such poll because indeed the average person may have their own understanding, not least in the US. Judging by the comments even people on HN have no understanding of "socialism" and are trying to shoehorn an idealist view of "a better society" into the term, or they cannot accept that "socialism" does not work.
I’d like to understand how they defined capitalism vs free enterprise for the poll participants.
I’m encouraged by parts of the poll, especially independents responses. I think a good many Americans perceive benefits to some degree of socialism ( ie healthcare ), but without going overboard.
It's not always clear who controls the means of production. It certainly isn't always the people who formally is supposed to - whether we're talking about a "capitalist" or "socialist" government.
Capitalism has a generational problem. Gen Z and Gen Alpha growing up in an age of austerity while wealth inequality grows out of control will have, and arguably is having, profound effects on just about everything
some of these media outlets manipulate public opinion.
majority of the public can't differentiate between commerce & capitalism. nor socialism vs 'free markets'.
the non-gullible people know it's not just about this vs that - but ultimately who controls what. ideally you want a system where no individual player or a few players can tip the system.
the Chinese system is probably the closest to that - but then the CCP exists :( . a large player that can tip the scales. but for the rest of the businesses - it's dog eat dog - the better ones that survive are suited to serve the population while aligned to the goals of the population for a good part.
>> “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
Steinbeck never said or wrote that, as far as I can tell.
He did write a passage that maybe was paraphrased that way, but let's be clear here, he was talking about Communism, and revolutionary Communism, not socialism:
"Except for the field organizers of strikes, who were pretty tough monkeys and devoted, most of the so-called Communists I met were middle-class, middle-aged people playing a game of dreams. I remember a woman in easy circumstances saying to another even more affluent: “After the revolution even we will have more, won’t we, dear?” Then there was another lover of proletarians who used to raise hell with Sunday picnickers on her property.
I guess the trouble was that we didn’t have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist. Maybe the Communists so closely questioned by the investigation committees were a danger to America, but the ones I knew — at least they claimed to be Communists — couldn’t have disrupted a Sunday-school picnic. Besides they were too busy fighting among themselves."
Steinbeck was a communist in the 1930s, he belonged to a communist organization and wrote for a communist publication. He wrote the above passage in the 1960s looking back on that period. To me it seems like he is trying to minimize his participation in revolutionary communism, as one would naturally do in the 1960s. Maybe I'm overly skeptical and he just grew up.
He did not write or say what you quoted him as saying.
Looks like the definition of "proletarian" is a member of "the class of industrial workers who lack their own means of production and hence sell their labor to live". I did that for some time, retired now. Don't know what about that category of person means they are expected to support communism.
> 81% viewing free enterprise positively, compared with 54% for capitalism and 39% for socialism
> capitalism is much more likely than free enterprise to be associated with unequal distribution of wealth.
This is why the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are largely useless in political debates, and people are mostly talking past each other.
When you look specifically at what Americans like about socialism, it's health care, education, welfare, and equality. I don't think many people want central planning of the entire economy, which is why critics of socialism raising the bogeyman of the USSR are missing the point.
The US would be the biggest recipient of socialism right now yet they come from 50 years of propaganda against it; it's so ingrained in their minds that even someone in the most exploited working class would dismiss the idea as "communists want to steal your money1!1!1".
We are so far to the 'right' now, that even getting a salary is socialism because it is taking money from those poor billionaires that could use that money to invest and create more jobs.
The problem in the US, is that historically all flavors of socialism have been painted the same way as communism. So in the end it has been capitalism vs socialism, no room in the middle.
And whenever countries with social democratic systems, or in general countries with strong socialist influences are presented to the public, the billionaire-pundits scramble to downplay their living standards.
Take this world cup, for example. You have Fox news pundits tripping over themselves to tell the audience that Europeans don't have AC, don't get ice with their drinks, or whatever.
Most such discussion suffer from an inadequate definition of what is meant by "socialism" vs what is meant by "capitalism". The most important aspect to me is ownership / control of the means of production, and I think there are very interesting compromises to be had in between extremes. What I mean: imagine if it was normal for companies to pay out a large part of their earnings to their employees. This does exist, of course, in some of the best companies, but is not widely spread and even when in place, the share of profit going to the employees is too small. Another share could still go to shareholders that "didn't work" for the profit to incentivize investments. Seems like a small change that could have a huge impact on wealth distribution.
Regardless of your actual views on the systems, as a non-american it's absolutely insane that so many people are incapable of thinking of one positive of a socialist economic system. I wouldn't describe myself as either a socialist or a capatalist, but with just a cursory ponder I can think of several benefits to both. The complete inability for critical thinking is quite saddening, and quite worrying considering america's influence.
I live in SF and the biggest issue I see regularly with this debate is that most Americans seem to be conflating "capitalism" with various things that aren't directly related.
First, I see Americans regularly conflating "socialism" to "wealth redistribution" and "capitalism" to "no taxes."
Second, I see many folks conflating high-trust cooperation to "socialism" and low-trust hostility to "capitalism."
Ultimately, capitalism and socialism is about who owns the means of production. While most economies are mixed, the countries we point to as socialism aren't actually socialist. They're just redistributive, high-trust capitalism. Sweden, Denmark, and Germany are predominantly capitalist countries. Bolivia and Venezuela are predominantly socialist countries.
21 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 38.6 ms ] threadHowever, the terms should also be clearly defined in such poll because indeed the average person may have their own understanding, not least in the US. Judging by the comments even people on HN have no understanding of "socialism" and are trying to shoehorn an idealist view of "a better society" into the term, or they cannot accept that "socialism" does not work.
Capitalism for the poor, you gotta pull yourself up by the bootstraps. If you ain't successful, you aren't working hard enough.
I’m encouraged by parts of the poll, especially independents responses. I think a good many Americans perceive benefits to some degree of socialism ( ie healthcare ), but without going overboard.
majority of the public can't differentiate between commerce & capitalism. nor socialism vs 'free markets'.
the non-gullible people know it's not just about this vs that - but ultimately who controls what. ideally you want a system where no individual player or a few players can tip the system.
the Chinese system is probably the closest to that - but then the CCP exists :( . a large player that can tip the scales. but for the rest of the businesses - it's dog eat dog - the better ones that survive are suited to serve the population while aligned to the goals of the population for a good part.
— John Steinbeck, still as relevant as ever
Steinbeck never said or wrote that, as far as I can tell.
He did write a passage that maybe was paraphrased that way, but let's be clear here, he was talking about Communism, and revolutionary Communism, not socialism:
"Except for the field organizers of strikes, who were pretty tough monkeys and devoted, most of the so-called Communists I met were middle-class, middle-aged people playing a game of dreams. I remember a woman in easy circumstances saying to another even more affluent: “After the revolution even we will have more, won’t we, dear?” Then there was another lover of proletarians who used to raise hell with Sunday picnickers on her property.
I guess the trouble was that we didn’t have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist. Maybe the Communists so closely questioned by the investigation committees were a danger to America, but the ones I knew — at least they claimed to be Communists — couldn’t have disrupted a Sunday-school picnic. Besides they were too busy fighting among themselves."
Steinbeck was a communist in the 1930s, he belonged to a communist organization and wrote for a communist publication. He wrote the above passage in the 1960s looking back on that period. To me it seems like he is trying to minimize his participation in revolutionary communism, as one would naturally do in the 1960s. Maybe I'm overly skeptical and he just grew up.
He did not write or say what you quoted him as saying.
Looks like the definition of "proletarian" is a member of "the class of industrial workers who lack their own means of production and hence sell their labor to live". I did that for some time, retired now. Don't know what about that category of person means they are expected to support communism.
I don't.
> capitalism is much more likely than free enterprise to be associated with unequal distribution of wealth.
This is why the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are largely useless in political debates, and people are mostly talking past each other.
When you look specifically at what Americans like about socialism, it's health care, education, welfare, and equality. I don't think many people want central planning of the entire economy, which is why critics of socialism raising the bogeyman of the USSR are missing the point.
capitalism and artificial intelligence are the same thing
And whenever countries with social democratic systems, or in general countries with strong socialist influences are presented to the public, the billionaire-pundits scramble to downplay their living standards.
Take this world cup, for example. You have Fox news pundits tripping over themselves to tell the audience that Europeans don't have AC, don't get ice with their drinks, or whatever.
First, I see Americans regularly conflating "socialism" to "wealth redistribution" and "capitalism" to "no taxes."
Second, I see many folks conflating high-trust cooperation to "socialism" and low-trust hostility to "capitalism."
Ultimately, capitalism and socialism is about who owns the means of production. While most economies are mixed, the countries we point to as socialism aren't actually socialist. They're just redistributive, high-trust capitalism. Sweden, Denmark, and Germany are predominantly capitalist countries. Bolivia and Venezuela are predominantly socialist countries.