Kruse Kronicle

“Socialism” Not So Negative, “Capitalism” Not So Positive

—

by

mwkruse
in , ,

Pew Research: "Socialism" Not So Negative, "Capitalism" Not So Positive

“Socialism” is a negative for most Americans, but certainly not all Americans. “Capitalism” is regarded positively by a majority of the public, though it is a thin majority. There are certain segments of the public – notably, young people and Democrats – where both “isms” are rated about equally. And while most Americans have a negative reaction to the word “militia,” the term is viewed more positively by Republican men than most other groups.

610-1 These are among the findings of a national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press that tests reactions to words and phrases frequently used in current political discourse. Overall, 29% say they have a positive reaction to the word “socialism,” while 59% react negatively. The public’s impressions of “capitalism,” though far more positive, are somewhat mixed. Slightly more than half (52%) react positively to the word “capitalism,” compared with 37% who say they have a negative reaction.

A large majority of Republicans (77%) react negatively to “socialism,” while 62% have a positive reaction to “capitalism.” Democrats’ impressions are more divided: In fact, about as many Democrats react positively to “socialism” (44%) as to “capitalism” (47%).

Reaction to “capitalism” is lukewarm among many demographic groups. Fewer than half of young people, women, people with lower incomes and those with less education react positively to “capitalism.” …

Comments

7 responses to ““Socialism” Not So Negative, “Capitalism” Not So Positive”

  1. nashbabe Avatar
    nashbabe

    “Atlas Shrugged”.
    ‘Nuff said.

    Reply
  2. PamBG Avatar
    PamBG

    Having just moved back to the US after 23 years, I get the impression that many Americans my age and older (I’m a Boomer) hear “socialism” and think “Stalin”. I get the impression that what is heard is “totalitarian control by the government, loss of personal freedom, central control of all aspects of economic life, imprisonment for wrong thinking/being a Christian”. In the UK, many people hear “socialism” and, if they are against it, might think “Everyone needs to pull their own weight” and, if they are for it think, “Remember how our society pulled together for the benefit of everyone in the War”.
    I could be wrong, but this is my impression. For my part, I guess it’s no secret that I think the US worships Mammon.

    Reply
  3. Chuck Avatar
    Chuck

    I think most American are keenly aware of the inherent dangers of both Capitalism and Socialism, and thus wary of both. Many tend to view the former as individualistic and selfish and the latter as collective and compassionate. These are inaccurate caricatures and history does not bear it out.
    IMO, the danger presented by the excessive size and dependency upon government eclipses that of corporations. Limited government is not antithetical to either everyone needing to “pull their own weight” or everyone coming together “for the benefit of everyone.” Limited government helps to ensure the protection of liberty, both personal and collective. I see this as the the better of two imperfect options.

    Reply
  4. David Avatar
    David

    I’m not surprized by the fact that the dems and young have a beeter feel for socialism. It probably feels good for both groups, like someone taking care of them. It doesn’t matter who wins…everyone gets a prize!
    History does have a way of repeating it’s self…the only bad thing it happens faster then ever these days. Hope the issues of the 1930’s and what is going on in Greece dosn’t happen in the US.
    We are getting to be a mixture of both isms and it will be interesting to see history play out in the years ahead.
    Like you said stuff happens…usually for a reason, hope we don’t forget….

    Reply
  5. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    I think a key piece to this survey is what definitions people give to the words. I think many folks respond to what they perceive as an ethos (i.e., socialism seems more egalitarian and caring) rather than careful consideration of differences between distinctives.

    Reply
  6. Paul Becker Avatar
    Paul Becker

    I agree with Michael on how people define words. The following is an attempt to describe how capital is perceived in different cultural contexts, albeit in a humorous way:
    TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM — You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.
    AN AMERICAN CORPORATION — You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.
    FRENCH CORPORATION — You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.
    A JAPANESE CORPORATION — You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowkimon(tm) and market them world-wide.
    A GERMAN CORPORATION — You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.
    A BRITISH CORPORATION — You have two cows. Both are mad.
    AN ITALIAN CORPORATION — You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are. You break for lunch.
    A RUSSIAN CORPORATION — You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
    A SWISS CORPORATION — You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.
    A HINDU CORPORATION — You have two cows. You worship them.
    A CHINESE CORPORATION — You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.
    AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION — You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute.
    ENRON CORPORATION — You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. Sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.
    ARTHUR ANDERSON, LLC — You have 2 cows. You shred all documents that Enron has any cows, take 2 cows from Enron for payment for consulting the cows, and attest that Enron has 9 cows.

    Reply
  7. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    ROTFL. I love this comparisons. I might have to post this with a couple more on AIG cows or Goldman Sachs cows.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading