PSL: Why do young people in the US favor socialism?

[marmar]

from the Party for Socialism and Liberation:



Why do young people in the US favor socialism?
Statement by PSL presidential candidate Peta Lindsay

By Peta Lindsay
January 4, 2012


Recently the Pew Center for research published a poll in which they found that 49 percent of young people in the U.S. favor socialism, while only 43 percent reported viewing it unfavorably. The report also revealed that African Americans favor socialism at a rate of 55 percent to 36 percent.

This news seems to have taken some in the capitalist media by surprise—but should it? Our experiences and our conditions shape our consciousness. And in our relatively short lifetimes, the experiences of my generation have certainly run contrary to the myth that the capitalist free market is a force for “peace,” “freedom” and “prosperity.”

In the last 10 years, we have seen endless wars that were premised on lies and driven by profit. Weapons contractors, financiers, oil executives and the politicians and generals who sit on the boards of these major corporations have literally made a killing through record profits from the death and destruction that they have been allowed to wreak abroad.

Millions of people across the country, the majority of them young, have marched against these wars and if we lived in a true democracy, if the decision to pursue these wars had ever been brought before the people, there is no doubt that our brothers and sisters in uniform would already be home. ..............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/why-do-young-people-in-the-us.html

[limpyhobbler]

1. because they are smart

[jody]

2. Perhaps they don't know what socialism is. I've read many posts on DU since 2001 by those who

have diverse definitions for the word.

At it's most basic level, many define socialism as society owning the means of production and government committees making decisions on what products to produce and what prices to charge.

Given the incompetence of congress and the executive branch, IMO they are not ready to take over that role.

[marmar]

4. ........

Myth #1: Socialists want to take away your property

This myth confuses private property with personal property. When socialists talk about the abolition of private property, they are referring to the socialization of the means of production—the resources and equipment that create wealth. Working people do not own this type of property—which is why we have to work to survive.

Right now, the wealth of the 1,000 billionaires is equal to that of the 3.5 billion poorest people on the planet. In order to provide everyone with more, that wealth must be commonly owned, and not the property of those few capitalists.

Socialists have no interest in taking away one’s home, car or individual items intended for personal use. In reality, as the foreclosure crisis has shown, under capitalism the banks own most of this property as well—and will take it away as they please.

Myth #2: Socialists are against democracy and for a dictatorship

The two-party “democratic” system under capitalism is in fact a dictatorship of the rich. Under it, working people create all the wealth, but capitalists—who own the corporations and banks—have all the economic power and use it to control politics. That fact never changes, even if we have the right to vote. We get to vote on who will oppress us next, while all the important decisions are made in executive boardrooms. ................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.pslweb.org/party/marxism-101/eight-myths-about-socialism.html

[jody]

6. Interesting but it does not address my point about society owning the means of production. nt

[CreekDog]

7. the definition for socialism is not as limited as your provided definition

it has come to be defined by what the "Social Democracies" in Western Europe have.

universal health care, universal anti-poverty and income stabilization programs, universal education, etc.

and think about it for a moment, aren't kids supposed to think this way?

kids are raised and provided for by others and if they are taught correctly, they are taught to share what they have with others.

it's capitalism that undermines the above lessons of childhood that we all take for granted.

if we want them to believe exclusively in laissez faire capitalism, then we should:

-teach them not to share with others.

-not provide for them as children, make them pay for everything or work for everything they get, like meals, their beds, room and board, etc.

-take advantage and make money off other children wherever they have an opportunity

[jody]

8. Socialism is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Feel free to define it as you wish but my statement "many define socialism as society owning the means of production and government committees making decisions on what products to produce and what prices to charge" is correct.

[xchrom]

12. All western democracies are mixed socialist/capitalist adventures.

America included.

Americans - for a long time - have wanted more socialism and less capitalism at work
In their lives.

And now we have something that points to younger people falling - in ever greater #s? - in that same line.

So what are you arguing?
That people want more Denmark or more Somalia?

[jody]

13. I argue nothing. I said many define socialism to include society owning the means of production.

I quoted M&W and proved my point.

[xchrom]

27. I think the soviet union is gone and people

Have been made aware of Canada, Denmark, etc & the benefits.

The boogie man is dead.

[jody]

30. See #23 n/t

[jody]

29. See #23 n/t

[CreekDog]

24. yes language evolves

are you aware of that?

[jody]

28. See #23 n/t

[CreekDog]

32. ye speak olde English?

[jody]

33. Were you unable to read or understand the Pew report? n/t

[CreekDog]

47. please keep worshipping the dictionary

after all, when the definition of the word changes, it will first be among the speakers of the language and after that will be reflected in the dictionary --it doesn't work the other way around.

and if so many young people weren't poor, the chances that they would prefer socialism over capitalism increase.

so if you don't like young people not feeling negative about the word "socialism", might want to support more anti poverty measures like they have in Europe, for example.

and if you don't want to do that? expect more and more people to like a word that you have open disdain for.

[jody]

49. Do you understand that the Pew report cited in the OP is based on a single question? Answers to

that question are meaningless if respondents don't use precisely the same definition for the words.

That's a weakness in all such surveys but is most egregious in this case because people who use the report's conclusions ignore the simple fact that the report says people view words differently without acknowledging that respondents themselves have vastly different definitions for those words.

[CreekDog]

50. Am I being lectured on accuracy by someone who wasn't convinced Obama was born in the USA?

really?

is this really happening?

[jody]

51. ROFL the issue is the Pew report and people who don't understand the limitations of its

conclusions that are based on a single question using words that are not defined to the respondent.

I assumed that those who post to this thread have some basic understanding of statistics, non-metric data, and methods for writing questions for a questionnaire.

I realize now that I was wrong with my assumption.

Have a great evening and goodbye.

[CreekDog]

52. you're responding to a different post genius

[provis99]

34. your basis for a complex ideology is a silly dictionary?

Jody saw it in the dictionary, so it must be right!

[jody]

35. See #23 for reasons why definitions are critical to understanding the OP. nt

[Puregonzo1188]

26. Socialism is not defined by the Social-Democratic Parties in Western Europe, most of which have

taken sharp neo-liberal turns in the last two decades.

The movement against neoliberalism in Spain that helped inspire Occupy Wall Street is in fact protesting the austerity cuts of the "Socialist" government.

Western Europe is still very much capitalist and does not have all the answers to our problems.

[jody]

31. See #23 n/t

[Puregonzo1188]

102. Thanks, as someone who self-identifies as a socialist, I don't have a problem knowing what is.

That being said I do think the definition is important.

[CreekDog]

53. who said they had all the answers to ALL our problems?

you're the one who used the ALL word not me.

[Odin2005]

42. You are wrong.

Socialism means the workers owning the means of production, it has NOTHING to do with how goods and serviced are distributed. A market economy based on co-ops is socialist.

Anyone who says that socialism means a command economy is either ignorant or a liar.

[jody]

44. I simply pointed out that socialism has different meanings. n/t

[Odin2005]

45. Those "other meanings" are the result of ignorance and lies.

[jody]

46. Have a great evening and goodbye. n/t

[Hawkowl]

106. Perhaps you don't know what it is.

Germany, and Finland vs. China and Cuba? Educate yourself.

[jody]

110. See # 8 and #23 nt

[oh08dem]

3. But all those people in government provided rascal scooters

tell me otherwise!!!

I know "kids" my age that LOVE the idea of universal healthcare (as they should), but are also ardent supporters of Ron Paul. I try to explain to them that Ron Paul has no use for government whatsoever, of course it falls on deaf ears.

Maybe they need the invisible hand to scuff them upside the head a few more times?

[justiceischeap]

5. IMO, they stopped listening about Ron Paul after they heard "legalize drugs." nt

[oh08dem]

11. Classic bait-and-switch

Promise to legalize marijuana with intentions to dismantle every social safety net.

I suppose they believe if he were to get elected he would have unlimited political capital in order to meet every promise made on the campaign trail. Very unrealistic.

[RKP5637]

9. I reaped the benefits of capitalism, but I've also been burned by it ... I was

lucky to grow up in the best of times IMO, pre-Reagan. Yep, there were lots of problems back then, but there were also some opportunities. After the passage of civil rights things seemed to be getting better. However, after Reagan got in with his Reaganomics and voodoo economics things went downhill for "we the people." IMO capitalism works if really well regulated, but when regulation fell apart capitalism became an evil -ism IMO.

Now, we have an oligarchy and a bunch of really super wealthy people figuring out how to next best F*** over "we the people." And they are sooo isolated from the rest of the population, the 99%, it's like we are on different planets.

I don't blame young people one bit for wanting to scrap this system and try something better, I'm all with them.

[ClassWarrior]

10. When the RW called Obama a socialist throughout the entire campaign, I said...

...that many folks would look at him and say, "If that's socialism, what's the big deal?"

NGU.

[former9thward]

14. Totally made up numbers in the OP

The poll reported that of young people (18-29) 49% viewed socialism negatively and 43% positively. The report also said African-Americans viewed capitalism favorably 50% to 40%. http://www.people-press.org/2010/05/04/socialism-not-so-negative-capitalism-not-so-positive/ Why do people make up numbers when the internet is so available?

[marmar]

15. You posted 2010's poll numbers, not 2011's.

[former9thward]

17. I posted the poll the link went to.

Whatever the year the poll is ridiculous. It polled 211 people across the country. So 211 people represent all young people in the U.S? Who were they? Any statistician would fall over laughing.

[provis99]

38. why would a statistician laugh? 211 is a perfectly valid sample.

fer chrissakes, you can achieve asymptotic properties at around a sample size of around 28-30 for an indicator variable like positive\negative.

[former9thward]

55. No it is not.

What is the margin of error? I would say + or - 35% for that sub-category. Why does the poll not mention what the MOE is? Any reputable poll does.

[provis99]

105. you don't know what you're talking about.

the margin of error depends on the number of choices in the indicator variable.

Let me dumb it down for you, since you are obviously ignorant of how statistics work.

A coin can be flipped either heads or tails. How many times would you have to flip it so you approximate an average of 50% heads and 50% tails? about 28-30 times. Not 211, not even 300 million times, just 28-30.

The same applies for these two choice variables that they are using in this study.

[former9thward]

108. Let me dumb it down for you.

If possible. What is the MOE for the "young people" subcategory and what is it for Blacks? I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer from you.

[Douglas Carpenter]

74. so 6% of conservative Republicans and 12% of Tea Partiers are pro-socialist?

[tkmorris]

16. I think it's crass to accuse the OP of "made up numbers"

In the case of young people aged 18-29 it appears he simply transposed the favorable/negative numbers. It makes a bit of difference, true, but the point that young people are more favorable to Socialism than older people are remains true nonetheless. Why accuse him/her of lying when a simple mistake would explain it?

Edited to add: I won't change my post but I see that Marmar's information posted above it shows an even simpler explanation. If anything that makes the accusation even more out of line.

[marmar]

18. It's not a mistake. The post you're responding to used the 2010 poll numbers, the OP uses 2011's.

[tkmorris]

20. I see that now, and thank you for the correction

I edited my post to reflect it.

[former9thward]

21. Do you think 211 young people represent all young people in the U.S.?

Because that is the number what the poll asked.

[former9thward]

19. I am accusing the "PSL presidential candidate Peta Lindsay" of making things up.

I am not accusing the OP of making anything up. He/she is just quoting a speech.

[tkmorris]

22. Went back and reread your post

Still reads like an accusation on the OP to me, I will simply assume you didn't intend it to be and let it go. Regardless, the numbers in the OP have since been shown to be correct.

Now if your issue with the poll is simply sample size it might have saved trouble if you'd pointed that out directly. FWIW I think the sample size is large enough to be roughly representative, while admittedly knowing little about the polls methodology.

[former9thward]

54. No 211 people does not represent tens of millions in that category.

The margin of error (which the poll or the OP does not conveniently mention) of that sub category is probably in the area of + or - 35%.

[jody]

64. The Pew report, see #23, says the following:

Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into account the effect of weighting. The following table shows the sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:

Group Sample Size Plus or minus
Total sample 1,521 3.5 percentage points
Republicans 380 6.5 percentage points
Democrats 489 5.5 percentage points
Independents 569 5.0 percentage points

[former9thward]

68. Notice they don't say what the MOE is for young people.

Which is what this discussion was about. 211 is ridiculously low for a national sample which any reputable pollster would tell you.

[jody]

71. Exactly and the MOE is certainly much more for the young people group than given. n/t

[CreekDog]

72. well you used a different poll to say the OP lied about the current poll

which actually makes you the purveyor of false information.

oh and because you can edit your post to make it accurate, and because this has been pointed out to you before...

we can only assume that you want to mislead people in order to make your point.

which really shows how much folks should ignore whatever you are trying to convince them of.

[former9thward]

75. I went directly to the Pew Research website.

The poll I posted is the only poll on the subject at that website. Maybe you can link to the Pew website and point out another poll. Unlike the OP I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just pointing out how absurd it is to take 211 people (wherever they came from) and claim they are representative of the whole nation.

[CreekDog]

78. if you knew anything then you would know they take lots of polls

if you are so ignorant that you try to prove that someone was dishonest by in their quoting of a poll and you use a DIFFERENT poll than they quoted to make your case, you are at best completely clueless and at worst outright lying to win an argument.

[former9thward]

82. The supposed 2011 poll which is not on their website

does not have ANY margin of error. Margin of error for 211 people nationwide + or - 30%.

[CreekDog]

84. Wrong. It's on their website. But keep dissembling...

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2159/socialism-capitalism-occupy-wall-street-libertarian-liberal-conservative

yet adding more reasons that nobody here should take your posts seriously.

[CreekDog]

86. Now let's recap your dissembling for the viewers at home:

1. you post that the OP "made up numbers" and you post another poll result to show that they are wrong --except the poll you posted wasn't the current one they were quoting.

2. when confronted you tried to trick everyone again when you said, "I posted the poll the link went to." But you didn't. The link in the OP went to a story about the new poll (2011) and not a site with the old poll (2010) results you posted.

3. then you complained about the margin of error in the poll that you couldn't be bothered to link correctly to (perhaps you didn't want to?)

4. then you quote the 2011 poll results (which later you said you couldn't find) to cast doubt on the poll because it had 6% and 12% of conservatives and tea party'ers answering positively about the word "socialism".

5. then when i point out that you just quoted the 2011 poll that earlier you called "made up numbers" when you were called out for lying about posting the 2010 poll results when the OP was about the 2011 poll --you said that I was accusing the OP of lying.

6. finally, you said the 2011 poll "was not on their website" right after you quoted me results from that poll which you got by following my link to THEIR WEBSITE.

there are lots of things you're doing in this thread, but telling the truth is not one of them.

[former9thward]

88. You are incapable of replying to the substance of the poll(s).

I saw someone had posted the 2011 poll in post #15. That's where I got the numbers about conservatives and TPs. That itself proves the poll is worthless. But you defend it as gospel because against all reason you want it to be true. The number sampled for young people was 211 with NO margin of error given. Any poll that is reputable gives the MOE. This poll didn't because it would be so high to make the results ridiculous. And they are. But go ahead and defend it.

[CreekDog]

91. I'll make a deal with you...apologize to the OP or correct your initial post

and i'll move on from this issue and discuss the poll issues with you.

deal?

[former9thward]

95. Deal. I opologize to the OP about incorrect numers from the 2011 poll.

Now you tell me why the poll refuses to say what the MOE is for young people.

[CreekDog]

96. they only provided MOE for the largest subgroups

and they probably created the poll not to create representative samples for the sub-sub-groups --which would have required larger sample sizes.

instead they probably only intended to create those for the largest groups, the overall sample, Republicans, Democrats, Independents.

which doesn't mean it's a bad sample.

remember, it wasn't Pew that was highlighting this aspect of the poll, but a secondary source, the PSL.

[CreekDog]

94. I think everybody can see that you actually don't care to discuss the poll with me

I offered you a deal and you don't even want to respond to reject it.

Because you refuse to admit you're wrong, even when you are wrong.

So what's the point in arguing with you?

[CreekDog]

85. it's not crass, it's calculated and dishonest

[CreekDog]

69. wrong poll

so much for your hypothesis.

[former9thward]

76. Right and 6% of conservative Rs and 12% of tea party are pro-socialist.

Really accurate poll.

[CreekDog]

77. quote the poll that you said you're referring to

or else you are lying.

[former9thward]

81. See link #15

Are accusing the OP of lying? It is their poll.

[CreekDog]

87. then why didn't you apologize to the OP for saying they "made up" numbers?

by then you saw the poll results and saw they didn't make anything up, you also see from me that the poll results are easily found on their website.

but you are quick to defend your dishonest posts, even when they clearly show that you attacked another poster unfairly.

but given multiple chances to take back the accusation that the OP "made up numbers" --you accused the OP of lying, you will not correct your accusation though you have proven through subsequent posts that you know the OP didn't make up numbers because you proceeded to discuss the poll the OP was talking about multiple times.

but for some reason, even though you know the OP didn't make up numbers, you WANT TO KEEP YOUR ACCUSATION THAT THEY DID MAKE UP NUMBERS up for everyone to see, when you have the option to correct yourself here or edit the post so that you aren't questioning the character of another DUer.

and all along, you are hoping to convince other people of various things, while you've completely ruined your credibility.

[former9thward]

89. I don't care what you think about my credibilily

because if you believe this totally unscientific poll it shows you have zero in that department. I said the candidate was making up numbers in that were quoted in the OP. I still do. They know the poll is BS but they want to portray it as real. Why don't they give the MOE? Why is this hidden when it is in every other poll? It is you that has the agenda here.

[CreekDog]

90. but you made the accusation without even knowing what the poll said

you said yourself, you couldn't find it.

so now you're saying that when you didn't know what the poll was, you did know its details which allowed you to call the OP "made up numbers"?

you're just making it worse although your continuing, implausibly-changing story is making the OP look more and more solid having been accused by you.

[former9thward]

98. You think 211 "young people" representing the nation is "solid"?

You think a poll that refuses to give a MOE for that group is solid? You think a person using crazy numbers to say that young people support socialism is solid? Their numbers for Blacks and Liberal Democrats were even worse. The polled 171 Blacks and 178 Liberal Democrats. Those MOEs have to been on the moon. With a large enough sample size it is fair to make conclusions for entire group at a 95% confidence level. But any pollster would tell you that conclusions for sub groups should not be made. The statistical formulas that are used in polling increase the MOE exponentially when you lower the sample size.

[CreekDog]

99. Why did you criticize the poll BEFORE READING IT???

you couldn't have known the poll had the issues you are complaining about BEFORE YOU LOOKED AT THE POLL!

jeez. nice dodge.

[former9thward]

109. I went to the Pew site and put 'young people socialism' in their search.

The 2010 poll is the only thing that comes up. I doubt they changed their methodology from 2010 to 2011. I DID LOOK AT THE POLL! See other people can put things in CAPS too. You are the only one who has tried to dodge the real issue here. The OP says young people support socialism. BS.

[CreekDog]

112. Where did the poll say "young people support socialism"? --because it did not

[jody]

23. THE Pew report “Little Change in Public's Response to 'Capitalism,' 'Socialism'” is at

http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism/?src=prc-headline

The question asked was “Q.48 As I read a list of words, please tell me what your reaction is to each ... (First,) do you have a positive or negative reaction to the word... {INSERT ITEM; RANDOMIZE}? How about {NEXT ITEM}? {IF NECESSARY: do you have a positive or negative reaction to the word (REPEAT
ITEM)}

Since none of the words were defined; Socialism, Progressive, Libertarian, Capitalism, Liberal, and Conservative; and as shown in this thread not all accept the definition I quoted, then it remains to be shown that the poll produced credible statistics.

[provis99]

36. "Tea Party" isn't defined. Does that mean you don't have a clue what it is?

[jody]

37. Have a great evening and goodbye. n/t

[CreekDog]

70. you say "good bye" when someone challenges you

[Earthbound Misfit]

65. I agree... the poll is useless

Here's another Pew poll on public knowledge of current affairs. The same age group who favored Socialism also scored lowest on current affairs...

Dramatic differences emerge when the results are broken down by age. Young people know the least: Only 15% percent of 18-29 year-olds are among the most informed third of the public, compared with 43% of those ages 65 and older.

http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/

[jody]

66. Hallelujah, I was beginning to think no one would understand the point I was trying to make. n/t

[Puregonzo1188]

25. Being familiar with the politics of the PSL I am not a fan, but I must admit that's a good article.

Rec.

[workinclasszero]

39. Answer: Because capatialism is killing them?

Paying off 30000 plus dollar student loans with 10 dollar an hour jobs, if you are lucky.

A bleak future with nothing to look forward to except getting sick later in life and losing every little thing wall street didn't steal from u yet and dying homeless under a bridge somewhere.

All monies thrown into the relentless maw of the MIC, SS dead, Medicare dead, food stamps dead, child labor laws dead, etc.

And the rich and corporate raiders pay ZERO taxes while they export all jobs possible to China or India.

I think that about covers it.

Capitalism....gotta love it!?

[markpkessinger]

40. Perhaps because they are too young to remember what a blended economy looked like

Clearly, young people have seen first hand the dysfunction of unfettered capitalism, so they're looking for an alternative. They may be too young to remember that pure socialist economies had their own brand of dysfunction as well. And they are definitely too young to remember how well the economy of this country (and some others) functioned when it was a real blend of socialist and capitalist elements.

[Starry Messenger]

41. Probably because they were born past the red-baiting era.

I came of age in the late '80's so I'm past "young", but we grew up with a less focused agenda of attacks on Socialist countries. The conservatives switched their focus of propaganda to other targets. Anyone born in the 70's, 80's and upwards wouldn't be subjected to a nonstop barrage of Evil Empire crap.

Also, this last capitalist crisis has hit the young, especially young people of color really really hard. The racist and anti-youth nature of the 1% must be glaringly apparent at this point.

[The Genealogist]

56. Boy I sure grew up with it

At least til about age 13 or 14, anyway. My father's mother was, well, obsessed with the Soviet Union and what it was doing in the world. She was quite well educated, and read voraciously. She had files and notes on most countries in the world--whether they were under Soviet control, what kind of economies countries had, where their aid came from. I heard about how bad socialism and communism were, how they were evil and their adherents wanted to destroy America and the American way of life. She thought St Ronny was, well, a saint, and adored Thatcher and Thatcherism as much as any American could. And I bought it pretty well, as much as a child could buy it. Of course, after she died I didn't hear quite so much about it, as the rest of the family was not so interested in it as she was, though they were conservatives. They had more of a blanket "communisim and socialism are bad" mentality without any real reason to believe it, as she did. Too, as I grew older, I came into contact with alternate ideas, and it wasn't more than about 4 or 5 years after her death that the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Perhaps my upbringing was unique.

[Starry Messenger]

58. That does sound rather unique.

My parents were RR supporters too, but they were more focused on resentment of gasoline rationing. I remember also local xenophobia being aimed at Iran and the hostage crisis. We had some friends who visited the USSR on peace missions and brought me back Soviet postage stamps. (The organization was called 'Children As Teachers of Peace'. I wanted to go!)

[Odin2005]

43. We Millennials are too young to remember the Cold War, and so...

...we were not indoctrinated with the "evil godless commies" BS.

[David__77]

48. "Socialism" is as broad a term as "democracy."

"Socialism" can mean many things. It can refer to a parliamentary republic with separation of powers, or something that is not like that at all. But it is positive that more view socialism positively, because that means that social solidarity and progressive ideals are gaining hold among younger people.

[fujiyama]

57. I think socialism can be defined in many ways

and it's never clear to me what a socialist really is. In this country, anyone that seems to favors any restriction or regulation on the issue of commerce and the economy is a "socialist" (at least to conservatives which makes a huge % of the population).

And of course, throughout history nasty regimes the world over have used the term socialist in their official name - the best known being Soviet Russia, North Korea, and Cuba. We see clearly in those cases that having power (whether its economic or political) concentrated in the hands of a few, a majority of the people suffer greatly.

At the same time, a similar effect occurs in a different sense in our own country, where the moneyed elite often times in the private sector in collusion with our elected leadership make all the decisions.

When the government makes nearly every decision to the point that ordinary citizens cannot freely conduct commerce, the standard of living falls. India is an interesting example. They had what was referred to as the "license raj", which basically said the government had to certify nearly everything, basically crippling the ability of ordinary people to start companies and sell and buy goods and services. If you wanted to even get a phone installed it would take years! Few goods from the outside were allowed for trade. And therefore the country got little in the way of foreign investment. Over the last two decades we saw a great push to liberalize the economy and the economy has been growing at much more rapid pace. That's not to say that every part of the population has experienced it equally. A large part has not, but at the same time there is more social mobility now than there was twenty five years ago (part of this is also the lessening importance of things like caste).

The ideal situation is something along the lines of northern Europe, Germany, Australia, and even Canada, which allow people to conduct trade and commerce freely, yet place some restrictions when it's clear that something harms society at large. At the same time, higher personal, capital gains and sales taxes are placed - and the taxes are progressive. Another common element between those countries is that they invest in their population with a robust safety net. It's not a "hand out" when a less fortunate person has access to health care. It's an expansion of rights. What's interesting is that many of these countries score higher on many quality of life indicators but they also have relatively low corporate taxes and fairly high economic freedom scores as well (at least as measured by Heritage - a right leaning think tank, so take that for what it's worth). The difference is they don't spend nearly as much on defense and have a different level of absolute greed in their private sector as well.

What we have in this country is crony capitalism and concentrated power by those at the very top, which includes most elected officials. Some people at the top of certain industries thrive in such an environment (at least those at the top of defense, health care, education, and energy). The laws are made for them and only them to prosper. People on all sides of the political spectrum should be concerned, because this is very bad for capitalism. It's not fair. And it's not free either. Opportunity dies. The standard of living falls. And ultimately violent rage erupts. The end result though, may or may not be what progressives want either - and does not by any means guarantee a progressive victory. It could be the opposite...

[eridani]

59. Because sociopathic whackjobs are always attacking the concept?

I just LOVE my communist fire department!

Operating principles straight out of Karl Marx. "From each according to his abilities"--the more your property is worth, the more property taxes you pay to support the fire department. "To each according to his needs"--they don't send a truck out unless you have a fire or some other emergency.

And I cringe everytime a Democrat or other liberal responds to winger whackjob calls of Socialism!! Communism!! by saying "Oh, no--this isn't socialist at all!" Thanks guys, for helping our enemies out. Anyone listening in hears the whackjob say "socialism," and you say "socialism" again, reinforcing his attack.

When will progressives realize what these whiners are actually attacking? They are attacking the notion of PUBLIC GOODS. So call them on it. Call them whiny childish brats who want public goods without paying for them, or sociopathic thugs who hate all public goods. Just because the fire department is communist (all public goods in a very narrow sense are socialist) doesn't mean that department stores or restaurants should be--not everything in the economy is a public good. But they're just ignorant jackasses who don't understand such things, so just mock them.

[socialist_n_TN]

61. My brother calls the notion of public goods

the concept of the Commons. Which is a socialist principle in itself.

[ananda]

60. Why do old people favor socialism?

Why does anyone favor socialism?

Well, it does speak to essential humanity,
sharing and caring, as opposed to
corporatebottism.

[Earthbound Misfit]

73. Old people (65+) are the LEAST favorable towards socialism...

Only 13% of 65+ have a positive view of Socialism.

[ronnie624]

62. Because it is the only equitable way

to distribute basic resources, goods and services to the working class, who represent the overwhelming majority of the human population. Most people understand this on some level, despite being uninformed on most issues. Remember the numbers, even among people who considered themselves moderate or conservative, on the polling about publicly funded healthcare?

[Rex]

63. Because many parts of the system that keeps our country running

are based on socialism.

[Earthbound Misfit]

67. Because young people (18-29) are less knowledgeable about current affairs, politics etc. than most

Here's another Pew poll on public knowledge of current affairs. The same age group who favored Socialism also scored lowest on current affairs...

"Dramatic differences emerge when the results are broken down by age. Young people know the least: Only 15% percent of 18-29 year-olds are among the most informed third of the public, compared with 43% of those ages 65 and older. "

http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/

[CreekDog]

80. and yet they show more intelligence in their voting

and are less susceptible to voting for people that run on outright lies and intolerance.

i think i doubt the idea that they are in fact, less informed than other groups of voters.

and there's nothing wrong with seeing socialism more positively than capitalism.

[Earthbound Misfit]

92. That they are less informed is more than an "idea" - it's data

You can reject the data and go with your opinion... I prefer to have my opinions backed up by facts/data.

There's nothing wrong with seeing socialism more positively unless it's based on misconceptions or false beliefs.

[CreekDog]

93. you're actually the one making the mistake about "socialism"

by insisting that the term can only mean or be viewed in its 100% total form.

when the reality is that the respondents are judging it by its real life applicability and ways that it's made society better and fairer.

and when you insist that "socialism" can only be viewed in its total form, then you're saying that capitalism can as well, and nobody has an example of pure capitalism to judge, but versions that are diluted by collective ownership...for example, we, the state, owns most of Nevada and Utah.

[Earthbound Misfit]

97. You can ask 100 people "what is socialism?"

and you wil get 100 different answers. Chances are very few answers will describe the exact characteristics that match the beliefs held by you. Some will be similar, some will not even be recognizable.

I never said "socialism can only be viewed in it's total form". I'm not even sure what you mean.. I'm guessing that you mean socialism comes in many variations and forms - agreed.

My point is that a group determined to be less informed on current events having a high opinion of socialism is nothing to speak of.

Chances are that most the respondents have just a rudimentary understanding at best and don't know the origin, history and structure of socialism. I doubt that most would have any notion of the philosophical and psychological underpinnings of socialism.

That dilutes the credibility of the poll for me...for you maybe not.

[CreekDog]

101. That's not what the poll says --it doesn't say people have a "high opinion" of socialism

it just asked for people's response, positive or negative to the word "socialism".

and clearly they aren't answering the question to your satisfaction. perhaps next time, you can answer on their behalf.

you can provide the response you think they should give. for this opinion poll, you can surely think of a better opinion than they can come up with without your assistance.

[Earthbound Misfit]

103. OK have it your way...

Clearly I'm not interpreting the poll and communicating my thoughts to YOUR satisfaction so I'll rephrase it...

My point is that a group determined to be less informed on current events having a positive response to the word socialism is nothing to speak of. I don't believe the results or opinions are meaningful.

I would say the same thing if they had a more positive response to the word capitalism or a more negative response to the word socialism. The actual response (positive or negative) is immaterial given the demographics of the poll.

[CreekDog]

79. Wow, this poll result has sure brought out the Republicans and their apologists here

I would be more impressed if they made plain their beliefs.

[Fool Count]

83. Well, if they keep calling President Obama a "Socialist"

more and more people may conclude that socialism is not all that scary.

[LanternWaste]

100. People certainly get vulgar...

People certainly get vulgar when they come across a poll they take exception to...

[SoCalDem]

104. The closer one is to either end of the spectrum, the more emphasis there is on "fairness"

Children are taught routinely to share
and elders nearing the end of their lives can look back and grasp the rampant UN-fairnesses they have experienced.

[pampango]

107. ""A man who is not a communist at the age of twenty is a fool. Any man who is still communist at the

age of thirty is an even bigger one." – George Bernard Shaw

Communism is not socialism but it would seem natural for young people to be attracted to the left. (I would differ with Mr. Shaw if he's implying that 30-year-olds and older are fools if they are not conservative.) Or maybe that's a belief caused by having grown up in the sixties. When I see the popularity of Ron Paul among college students, I do shake my head.

[Dawson Leery]

111. Those age 30 and under (and some a little older) have been hit hard by the current crisis.

Also, as others have mentioned, the today's youth were not raised during the culture of "red baiting".