8 ms·

Democrats More Positive About Socialism Than Capitalism (2018)

52 points by perfunctory 7y ago

Grustaf 7y ago
I suspect that this preference is purely theoretical...
- jeltz 7y ago
  Wouldn't it be theoretically for virtually everyone answering the poll no matter what their answer is?
  - Grustaf 7y ago
    If you mean that there is no pure capitalist society, sure. But I don’t think many people with experience from a socialist country prefer that even to Brazil at least not among millennials.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tacosx 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.
black_puppydog 7y ago
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 7y ago
  ...why are you using "y'all" if you're not American, let alone from the south?
  - black_puppydog 7y ago
    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?
lettergram 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.
bmmayer1 7y ago
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-churchill-on-being-a-socialist-or-conservative/ https://katecarruthers.com/2005/02/11/alleged-quote-by-churc...
- black_puppydog 7y ago
  If you're right, then those stats should have stayed stable.
- thiago_fm 7y ago
  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.
AndrewDucker 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.
ed_balls 7y ago
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?"
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- atomi 7y ago
  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.
baq 7y ago
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'.
Tepix 7y ago
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 7y ago
  I would say "probably yes" to all of them except the corruption. I have seen little evidence that socialism reduces corruption.
nabla9 7y ago
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 7y ago
  > http://radicalmarkets.com/chapters/uniting-the-worlds-workers/ http://radicalmarkets.com/chapters/uniting-the-worlds-worker... > 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 7y ago
    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.
josteink 7y ago
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?
perfunctory 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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
Kaotique 7y ago
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.
AlexB138 7y ago
> 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 7y ago
  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%20Glass-Steagall.pdf http://webhome.auburn.edu/~barthjr/papers/The%20Repeal%20of%... (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_PassRailComp_CaseStudy_Sweden.pdf https://www.cerre.eu/sites/cerre/files/161206_CERRE_PassRail.... (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.
xanamander 7y ago
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?
umadon 7y ago
Bernie Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez socialist? I got a bridge to sell you...
blackbrokkoli 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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 7y ago
    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.
JanSt 7y ago
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!).
brbrodude 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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).
rayiner 7y ago
People who were at most 1 when the Soviet Union collapsed prefer socialism. You don’t say.
black_puppydog 7y ago
This thread just reads like one collective allergic reaction. Y'all have been well trained. Two thumbs up for capitalism!
- AlexB138 7y ago
  Yes, those who disagree with you are trained and you have the one truth. How very convenient.
  - black_puppydog 7y ago
    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.
harimau777 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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
purplezooey 7y ago
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.
sys_64738 7y ago
My observations are that kids think it's cool to be socialist. Possibly from how they see capitalism not working for them.

52 points by perfunctory 7y ago

Grustaf 7y ago

I suspect that this preference is purely theoretical...

jeltz 7y ago
Wouldn't it be theoretically for virtually everyone answering the poll no matter what their answer is?
- Grustaf 7y ago
  If you mean that there is no pure capitalist society, sure. But I don’t think many people with experience from a socialist country prefer that even to Brazil at least not among millennials.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tacosx 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.

black_puppydog 7y ago

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 7y ago
...why are you using "y'all" if you're not American, let alone from the south?
- black_puppydog 7y ago
  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?

lettergram 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.

bmmayer1 7y ago

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

black_puppydog 7y ago
If you're right, then those stats should have stayed stable.
thiago_fm 7y ago
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.

AndrewDucker 7y ago

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 7y ago
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.

ed_balls 7y ago

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?"

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
atomi 7y ago
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.

baq 7y ago

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'.

Tepix 7y ago

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 7y ago
I would say "probably yes" to all of them except the corruption. I have seen little evidence that socialism reduces corruption.

nabla9 7y ago

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 7y ago
> http://radicalmarkets.com/chapters/uniting-the-worlds-workers/ http://radicalmarkets.com/chapters/uniting-the-worlds-worker... > 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 7y ago
  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.

josteink 7y ago

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?

perfunctory 7y ago

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 7y ago
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

Kaotique 7y ago

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.

AlexB138 7y ago

> 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 7y ago
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%20Glass-Steagall.pdf http://webhome.auburn.edu/~barthjr/papers/The%20Repeal%20of%... (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_PassRailComp_CaseStudy_Sweden.pdf https://www.cerre.eu/sites/cerre/files/161206_CERRE_PassRail.... (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.

xanamander 7y ago

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?

umadon 7y ago

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

blackbrokkoli 7y ago

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 7y ago
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 7y ago
  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.

JanSt 7y ago

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!).

brbrodude 7y ago

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 7y ago
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).

rayiner 7y ago

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

black_puppydog 7y ago

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

AlexB138 7y ago
Yes, those who disagree with you are trained and you have the one truth. How very convenient.
- black_puppydog 7y ago
  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.

harimau777 7y ago

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 7y ago
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

purplezooey 7y ago

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.

sys_64738 7y ago

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