Most Americans under 30 "do not support capitalism"

Always points for Python


More people would support capitalism if they thought it was working for them instead of feeding off them.


A bit OT, but…


That’s an old saying. We need a newer one. “If a man does not recoil in loathing and disgust at the excesses of present capitalism by the time he is 40, he has no heart or brain.”

So, we don’t want money to control. We don’t want the military to control. We don’t even want a benevolent ruler to control. We don’t want anything or any system in overall control, because anything and any system can always be gamed to someone’s advantage. That’s anarchy, that is. Anarchy can be a balance. You may be thinking of chaos, which isn’t the same thing at all.


Thank you for calling this out—I hate old saws like this because they’re so obviously baseless and everyone seems to just accept them.


Agreed. But then, some old saws can be nice…


Yes those hypocritical views are pretty hard to swallow.

Eh, not as I am familiar with it, but as this thread shows, my understanding of definitions aren’t keeping up with the times.

The only thing I like about “capitalism” is the Whiskey.


Are there different criteria for women regarding socialism/capitalism, the quote is unclear?

From what I’ve seen, the quote tends to be pulled out by 40+ year old men who are struggling to rationalize “screw 'em, I’ve got mine” as a form of intellectualism.


Isn’t this what US capitalism should look like? Everyone is taxed and that money is ours. (problem seems to be the group we gave the administrative rights to doesn’t do what we would like)


Maybe the old definitions are becoming new again.

@Richard_Kirk’s definition of anarchy would fit comfortably in Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s definition (Anarchy is Order Without Power), and that was nearly 180 years ago. The arguments between Marxists and Anarchists about whether the state has a place in socialism were 150 years ago, and that was never settled.

Libertarian capitalism and “anarcho”-capitalism are relatively recent creations at less than 100 years old.


The people with wealth have been stacking the game in benefit of their heirs for quite some time. Capitalism stops working when their isn’t a level(ish) playing field. When your success is largely influenced by who you were born to and not your ability it ceases to be viable system.


oh wow. feeling better about being a state university drop-out right about now.

1 Like

I am not really sure what “excesses of present capitalism” means. That there is too much Capitalism? Capitalism is everywhere, it is how we function as a society to exchanges goods and services.

For sure you can find many examples of corrupt Capitalism, and specific examples of bad industries. But on the whole it works pretty well. (Again, it requires some oversight and regulation.)

But I have to imagine both of you typing away on your Apple/Dell etc computer, sipping artisanal coffee or a Mt Dew, poking up your designer specs, shifting in your thrift store jeans, as you prepare to bang out a response how awful all these things are, when you are not only part of the system, but many of the fun luxuries and conveniences you use are part of it.

I think one has a good argument for certain sectors being harmed by unbridled capitalism, but in other sectors it certainly has made things better.

I know you have mentioned this several times and I really should invest sitting down and learning more about it.[quote=“theodore604, post:32, topic:77262, full:true”]
The people with wealth have been stacking the game in benefit of their heirs for quite some time. Capitalism stops working when their isn’t a level(ish) playing field. When your success is largely influenced by who you were born to and not your ability it ceases to be viable system.

I agree with that. Which is why I tempered my enthusiasm for capitalism by saying that with out rules and regulations, it doesn’t work well.

1 Like

Well, why would you want to understand a few things when instead you can just sound like you understand all things?

Increases in the standard of living hardly qualify as excesses.

That said, I’m not attacking capitalism, but the “old saying” you mentioned. It’s a clever turn of phrase, but it’s just a fancy way to say “If you don’t agree with me, you’re stupid.”

This particular quotation is often misattributed to Winston Churchill to give it extra authority.


I’m not sure what part of the Nordic Model is true socialism. It is a social democratic model.

Norway has largely a state capitalist economy and everyone else is a free market capitalistic economy. All of them have very strong private property rights. The workers do not own the means of production, but simply have more control over it since they are heavily unionized and can negotiate better.

The problem is that social democrats refer to themselves as socialists when they really aren’t. Social democratic programs in a capitalist economy are not socialism. It is at best a more egalitarian capitalism.

Hell, even Bernie Sanders seems to get confused as he keeps calling himself a democratic socialist but advocates for social democracy - which are two radically different things - the former being actual socialism.


This argument is specious and you know it.

“I hate the way we vote. We should change the electoral college.”

“But the governments we’ve had have made the American economy the powerhouse it is today.”

“I hate the way my car works. I want to look into other transportation options”

“Ah! But I have a picture of you enjoying ice cream in the next county! Your car took you there, did it not? Clearly you’re benefiting in some way.”

“I should exercise more.”

“But you’ve lived this long and been in great health without exercise!”

It’s fallacious reasoning to argue that because someone is part of a system, or has engaged in a particular behavior in the past or present, that the system or the activity is either optimal or desirable.

Meanwhile, at its core, capitalism is not intrinsically about luxury or consumer items, which existed before capitalism. Capitalism is in large part about private ownership and the private accumulation of wealth, made possible by the existence of surplus production. One consequence of this has been the democratization of certain kinds of consumer items. However, this is not a direct goal of capitalism. One common problem among communist (read: state-level socialism) states in the second half of the 20th century was that state level production did not prioritize various needs among the intelligentsia, leading to costliness and scarcity in items like paper (and a subsequent deficit and rationing of toilet paper- as described in How We Survived Communism and Even Laughed by Slavenka Drakilc).

This was in large part due to a greater focus on various high level state needs like the mechanization of agriculture. The state simply overlooked these things, and because all economic activity was run by the state, these luxury items were scarce. These nation-states engaged in some very risky experiments around low level central planning of national economies. However to look at their failings and conclude that luxury items and various goods and services are the sole province of capitalism, is to draw what can only be described as 100% the wrong conclusion. Namely that capitalism is as an economic system is both perfectly geared for, and exclusively so, the production of consumer goods and luxury items.


Most people with crushing school debt don’t support capitalism. Most people with disposable income do.

Betcha can’t guess which one is predominately Americans below 30!