By James Thompson

A recent Rasmussen poll published on March 15, 2011 indicates that 11% of Americans favor communism over capitalism. Put that way, it may not sound like much, but if you look at the numbers it is significant in a country totally brainwashed by the capitalist controlled media. Based on a U.S. population estimate of 312,000,000 it means that roughly 34,320,000 people in the U.S. think that communism would be superior to capitalism.

Another poll recently conducted by the Pew Research Center suggests that 31% of people in the U.S. have a positive view of socialism (see article posted on this blog). That would work out to be 96,720,000 people having a positive view of socialism. In certain sectors of the population, this percentage is much higher. Among the 18 to 29 year old age group, 49% had a positive view of socialism. Among African Americans, 55% had a positive view of socialism and among liberal Democrats, 59% had a positive view of socialism.

All these figures add up to the fact that there are a large number of people in the U.S.A. who are open to both communism and socialism. This is truly amazing given the slander and lies hurled at socialists and communists since the horrible days of McCarthyism in the 1950’s. Because of the uninterrupted torrent of abuse from the right wing which has been so well publicized by the mainstream media, most people in this country don’t have a clue as to what are the aims of communists and socialists.

Many people would be shocked to learn that the primary aim of communists is to support working people in their struggle to achieve a better life for themselves. Communists understand that in order for this to happen, the working class must become the ruling class. As long as the ultra-wealthy are the ruling class, the working class will have to struggle for every scrap they get. Communists also understand that only a united working class can achieve the goal of the working class becoming the ruling class. As long as capitalists can divide working people by race, gender, culture, religion and other innumerable wedges that they use so effectively, true democracy of the people cannot happen and the working class will remain the oppressed class.

So, how has the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA) leadership responded to this rising tide of interest in communism and socialism?

Although the party program “The Road to Socialism” and the party constitution point out the importance of the CPUSA fighting for socialism, leadership in a variety of venues has flatly stated that “socialism is off the table.” These venues have included the Glenn Beck show and a variety of publically circulated articles in the party press. There have also been articles suggesting that the word “communism” is unacceptable and should be changed.

Although there is a raging contradiction between the CPUSA program and constitution and what its leaders are advocating, the rift between leadership, membership and the public runs even deeper. Some in leadership of the CPUSA have suggested that “Leninism” is a “foreign” concept and should be dropped.

Many other Marxist-Leninist ideological tools have been jettisoned by CPUSA leadership. These are tools which have served the working class well over the history of the communist movement.

With what have communist strategies and tactics been replaced? The main tactic being advocated by CPUSA leadership today is the “defeat of the ultra-right.” Leadership maintains the only way to do this is to work to elect Democratic Party politicians. Leadership does not advocate evaluating these politicians based on their voting records and platforms, but simply seeks to elect democrats. They fail to recognize that democrats have supported untold imperialist wars and have actively opposed the interests of the working class. Members of the Obama administration have disrespected working people in an effort to cozy up to the enemy of the working class. This should not be forgotten. The positive contributions of progressive democrats should also not be forgotten and these individuals should be supported. In other words, democrats should be evaluated critically and exposed when they work to undermine the working class. Similarly, Republicans should be viewed critically, and when Republicans are more progressive in their positions with respect to the working class than their democratic opponents, they should be supported. CPUSA should be a partisan party for the working class, not a partisan party for any bourgeois political party, i.e. political party of, by and for the wealthy. CPUSA should be a political party of, by and for the working class.

The oversimplification of political struggle by CPUSA leadership has been ruinous to the party and membership has rapidly and dramatically dwindled to almost nothing. Paid party staff members have been laid off and members who disagree with leadership’s approach have been isolated, ignored and alienated.

Many members express fear of being expelled from the party, much like church members in the Middle Ages feared excommunication.

Why would people be afraid of being expelled from the CPUSA if it is only a Communist Party in name?

A number of Communist Parties from around the world have condemned the ideological positions of CPUSA leadership. One statement from Germany went so far as to say, “We don’t have time for this.”

They are right. It is not their responsibility to remake the CPUSA. It is up to the people in this country who identify with the communist movement to work together to build a new Communist Party in this country, either within the structure of the CPUSA or outside of it.

We need an extraordinary CPUSA party convention to address the egregious wrongs committed by current party leadership. Leadership should have an opportunity on a level playing field to address the burning questions of the membership.

Many party members are questioning why leadership’s positions are so divergent from the party program and party constitution.

Members know that a vast treasure of party historical items, items which could have found a home in a party owned and operated museum, were jettisoned off to an exclusive private university, New York University. Membership is wondering why we were not consulted ahead of time in an extraordinary convention. Members are also wondering about whether the university is committed to guaranteeing safeguards to protect these historical treasures or whether some university administrator with an ideological ax to grind could destroy these items at a later date.

Members are wondering about why the party press was closed down without consulting membership beforehand.

Members are wondering about what happened to out of date books and pamphlets published by the party press. Are these books by Gus Hall and other party luminaries in storage somewhere?

Members are wondering what happened to party items such as badges, cards, posters, and banners.

Members are wondering what happened to the organizational office of the party.

Members are wondering why most party publications are just apologist papers for the Obama administration.

Members are wondering when the party will be ready to resume its historical role as the vanguard party of the working class and actually be involved in the working class struggle, rather than commenting on its passing.

Members are wondering when the party will take leadership of anything.

Members are wondering when the party will show any kind of independence and be a partisan for the working class.

Members are wondering when the party will embrace its history rather than defaming it.

Members are wondering when there will be a real educational program to educate people about Marxist-Leninist theory. In fact, members are wondering when we will again be able to call ourselves Marxist-Leninists and really mean it.

Leadership deserves the opportunity to publicly and fully answer all these questions and many more.

So, if you are among the 34,320,000 who are for communism and against capitalism, don’t be put off by the passive ideology of current CPUSA leadership. Come join us to fight the revisionism and opportunism within our party leadership and build a true communist movement which can fight for the interests of the working class. The working class can build a better world for everybody, but we must be united in our struggle. Leadership’s actions and positions divide us since they do not reflect the true interests of the working class. The Communist Party can and will be the party of the 99%, but only when the party stands up for the working class and working people are ready and willing to fight for their interests in unified struggle.

PHill1917@comcast.net

Please read this article and make comments:

http://politicalaffairs.net/lenin-and-democracy-in-america/

Kyle Mackey, Secretary Treasurer of the Cowlitz Wahkiakum Counties Central
Labor Council in Washington State and a member of ILWU Local 21, has
distributed this Call to Action. It is followed by the resolution passed
on January 2, 2012, by that Labor Council.

ILWU International President McElrath’s statement is here:
http://tinyurl.com/6qvwkfm

Messages of solidarity and donations can be sent to ILWU Local 21,
617-14th Avenue, Longview, WA 98632, Dan Coffman, President, Shelly
Porter, Sec.-Treas., phone: 360.423.0950, fax: 360.423.5498, email:
ilwu21@iinet.com

A Call to Action:

It is estimated, sometime in late January or early February the [scab] EGT
facility at the port of Longview will receive its first grain ship to be
loaded at its berth. The name and timing of this ship will undoubtedly be
kept secret until the last possible moment. It is likely there will be a
few days to as little as 24 hours notice of when the ship will dock.
Notification will be given via the Internet and any other relevant means
of networking throughout the country.

We are imploring all able working class people willing to take time out of
his or her own lives, to come to Longview, Washington for a historic
protest.

This is the time for workers everywhere to take a stand. Unions and the
working class standard of living that have benefited from collective
bargaining for so long are in danger of being extracted completely. You
can see this systematically taking place over the last 30 years or longer,
and especially in recent times. Unions have lost ground over this period
of time due to unjust anti-labor laws, corporate influence on the
government, and complacency on the part of organized labor among other
reasons.

We recognize the danger of, and view the government attack on collective
bargaining of public employees as a warning shot to labor as a whole.
Wisconsin was ground zero and the spark that awoke the sleeping giant that
is labor. Workers are beginning to remember there is indeed strength in
numbers, regardless of how many unjust laws are made to divide us.

We have not been pacified long enough, as to give up our constitutional
rights or to give up all the gains our forefathers fought and died to
achieve over the last hundred years. People inherently ask WHY? Why should
I, or others come to the aid of the ILWU? Why should I care, and what does
it matter if this ship gets loaded and they lose this struggle?

The ILWU has a proud history of being arguably the strongest labor union
in the world for almost 80 years. The secret of this success lies in the
bottom up, rank and file democratic structure. This empowers and involves
every member. And the intelligence and foresight of the leaders who knew
without unity on the entire west coast and unity with the working class,
there was no strength.

EGT is attempting to break the ILWU. EGT is operating on public port
property where the ILWU have worked for decades. They are in violation of
their lease agreement, which states that the ILWU is to be the workforce
on port property. Longshoremen have done work in port grain elevators
before the ILWU was formed [in the 1930s]. If EGT succeeds, they will have
essentially broken the ILWU.

First, they will set a precedent that work on public port docks is no
longer automatically Longshore Jurisdiction. Then within less than a year,
when the northwest grain handlers agreement is set to be negotiated, all
the other grain elevators will seek to either go non-ILWU or will seek to
match the eroded standard EGT creates. Shortly thereafter in 2014, the
ILWU will negotiate its master contract with the Pacific Maritime
Association. If they lose, you can bet the PMA will take notice and hit
hard.

Most importantly to note is that grain accounts for 30% of the ILWU health
and welfare package. If you lose a third of your bargaining power and your
traditional jurisdiction on port property, what are you left with? Either
no ILWU, or a union that would resemble nothing like what it once was.
There would be little or no collective power up and down the west coast,
and no way to fight for social justice or defend the working class, just
as the ILWU has done for so long, in its entrenched and strategic position
at the gates of international commerce.

Longshoremen have traditionally been a rough and tough bunch, but they
always make sure to educate their members on the importance of history,
unity and the power of collective bargaining. People nowadays forget or
have not been taught their own history, they forget what it means to cross
a picket line, and become a scab the rest of their life. For 30 years or
more we have been sliding downhill, while some would argue unions have
outlived their time. The reality is unions are the last defense when the
imperfect system of checks and balances within our government fails to
serve the interests of the workers.

The class struggle never really goes away. Right now the rich and the
ruling class are attempting to deal a blow that labor might never recover
from. The ILWU has always been the vanguard of labor everywhere. Today,
the ILWU’s value of “An Injury to One, Is an Injury to All” couldn’t be
any more pertinent for all organizations. So please, if you believe in a
better future for the 99% of us that work for a living, do what you can to
support ILWU Local 21.

“The most important word in the language of the working class is
solidarity.”– Harry Bridges

In Solidarity,

Kyle Mackey, Secretary/Treasurer Cowlitz -Wahkiakum Counties Central Labor
Council
ILWU Local 21 Member

RESOLUTION of the Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Counties (Washington ) Central Labor
Council –
Adopted January 2, 2012

Whereas: the ILWU has always been at the forefront in the struggle for
social justice and better working conditions. And,

Whereas: ILWU Local 21 has inspired working people worldwide. And,

Whereas: ILWU jurisdiction is under an unprecedented attack. And,

Whereas: It is clear to all working people that EGT is seeking to race to
the bottom and destroy a long history of good family wage jobs throughout
the area. And,

Whereas: The Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Counties Central Labor Council, hereinafter
called the council, recognize the blatant union busting tactics of EGT, as
well, the danger of losing the ILWU as a powerful ally for the working
class. And,

Be it Resolved: that this Council call out to friends of labor and the
“99%” everywhere to come to the aid of ILWU Local 21, and to support them
in any way possible in their fight against multi national conglomerate
EGT. And,

Be it further Resolved: that this Council request that anyone willing to
participate in a community and labor protest in Longview , Washington of
the first EGT grain ship, do so when called upon by this body. And,

Finally be it Resolved: that the Council forward this resolution to all
local unions, the Washington State Labor Council, Oregon Federation of
Labor, California Labor Federation, the AFL-CIO, and all other relevant
organizations.

Respectfully submitted,

Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Counties Central Labor Council Executive Board

[Note: This is the Central Labor Council for the Longview , WA area.]

Distributed by:

All Unions Committee For Single Payer Health Care–HR 676
c/o Nurses Professional Organization (NPO)
1169 Eastern Parkway, Suite 2218
Louisville, KY 40217
(502) 636 1551

Email: nursenpo@aol.com
http://unionsforsinglepayer.org
01/04/2012

Via http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/2012/01/2011-2012-summing-uptaking-stock.html

People across the political spectrum share one thing: they sense that we are living at a critical moment in the history of capitalism. Where the last decade of the twentieth century brought a near-universal and smug celebration of capitalism’s success, the second decade of the twenty-first century and beyond finds uncertainty, doubts, and fears in every conversation about global capitalism.

As recently as 1999, capitalism’s managers – look-alike, sound-alike politicians, media puppets, and swaggering corporate managers – enjoyed the confidence of all but obstinate skeptics and those many living on the margins.

True, the so-called “anti-globalization movement” gained traction at the end of the twentieth century, but as a scattered, unfocussed movement against capital’s excesses and not its mechanism.

Today, everything has changed. Confidence in capitalism and its institutions is at a low never seen in most our lifetimes. While I plead guilty as much as any Marxist in finding a “crisis” at every juncture, one can construct a plausible argument for locating profound contradictions in every bourgeois institution – the economy, the political system, ideology, and culture.

Few would argue that the global capitalist economy is healthy. Instead, leaders and thinkers of every stripe are occupied with offering road maps for delivery from the four years of intractable chaos. Little progress has been made.

The four years of economic turmoil has taken its toll on political legitimacy. The US political system and its two-party manifestation have likely never known such deep and popular disapproval. Alternative movements of left and right have boiled over to express this frustration.

The Obama administration, after three years, appears stuck in a historic rut slightly more activist than the Hoover administration in 1932, but far from the audacity and experimentation of the Roosevelt administration of 1933.

Looking back, it is easy to see the political revival of the right in 2010 as the obstacle and subsequent log jam to progress, but that abuses history. Armed with a Congressional majority, the Democrats could have moved decisively in 2008, but not with the cabal of neo-liberal advisors chosen by Obama to craft policy. One can better see the rise of the right as a measure of the disappointment with the Administration’s inadequate management of the economy.

In Europe, elected governments have ceded authority to technocrats approved by international financial interests. Frustration with social democratic impotence has lead to a series of “protest” victories by conservatives.

In the near future, there is a real chance that Germany will achieve, by peaceful means, the dominance of Europe that it sought in World War II.

Ideologically, most of the world’s leaders remain caught in the web of neo-liberalism – the worship of markets, balanced budgets, government restraint, and the sanctity of capital. Despite much sensationalist commentary early in the economic crisis about the death of neo-liberalism or the passing of the Thatcher-Reagan moment, political leaders, most economists, and too many labor leaders have failed to escape neo-liberal thinking.

Fundamentalist market dogma, enforced by an extortionate financial complex, breeds the crisis-deepening austerity favored by leaders in the US and Europe. And there is no escape in sight.

Culture, dominated by monopoly capital entertainment behemoths, has sunk to new levels of vulgarity and triviality. At the same time, it counts as the distraction that holds together the fragile politico-economic system. The coarseness of “reality” television, the violence and moral depravity of cinema, banal, soulless corporate-crafted music, and the faux-loyalties of spectator team sports pass as entertainment. Equally distracting is the ubiquitous cult of the celebrity.

The once-promising diversity of the internet is, thanks to commercial penetration, transforming into a medium of personal, individualistic self-indulgence.

The same monopolies that own the entertainment industry own the news media and employ the mass opinion makers. The result is timid, conformist coverage, slanted to respect officialdom and the corporate paymasters. Likewise, what passes for analysis is a useless brew of shallowness and deference to the rich and powerful.

Entering the New Year, dangers abound. Italy alone must refinance nearly a third of its national debt in 2012-2013—591.9 billion euros. Spain must refinance nearly half and Greece nearly two-thirds. None can sustain refinancing at current yields asked by financial markets without harsh, dramatic counter-cuts in spending. And these cuts necessarily will shrink economic growth, resulting in even greater debt as a percentage of GDP. Growth rates are already shrinking in the European Union: On December 16, Ireland announced a 1.9% drop in GDP for the 3rd quarter, well below expectations. Overall EU growth has slipped to .8% in the 3rd quarter from 3.1% in the 1st quarter. The politics of austerity will only exacerbate this trend in 2012.

In the US, the Federal Reserve reports that households’ net worth fell by $2.4 trillion from the second to third quarter of 2011. For the year, growth in personal disposable income has been flat or trending downward, while the personal savings rate has dropped dramatically and consumer credit debt is again on the upswing— mimicking the pre-crisis trend. Debt-driven consumer spending fuels what little economic growth is shown by the anemic US economy. These same consumers must contend with escalating food prices: year-over-year increases in food costs hit 4.6% in November.

September and October factory orders dropped and the index of service sector activity declined in November.

Unemployment remains dangerously and intransigently high despite minor adjustments in the official rate that reflect, at best, deep structural changes in the employment and compensation options available to those without work or underemployed. Even the Wall Street gasbags who fill the airwaves with Pollyanna optimism know that US standards of living have taken a radical and gloomy turn for the worse.

The electoral landscape in the US shows little to celebrate. While many on the left are again raising fears of a Republican Party in ascendancy, the truth is that the Republicans are engaged in an intense, bitter, and bloody struggle between the corporate wing and the no-nothing fanatics who occupy the Party’s extreme right. With Obama-mania now reduced to a tepid enthusiasm for blocking the crazies, corporate Republicans sense a real opportunity to win executive power as many of their European counterparts have in recent months. At the same time, they recognize that voters overwhelmingly reject the ranting of the extreme right Neanderthals. So far, corporate Republicans have used their financial resources and media control to turn back the tea-party pretenders: Palin, Bachman, Cain, Perry, and now Gingrich. Clearly, they want Mitt Romney, a man who can talk the tea-party talk, but walk the pro-corporate walk.

And just as clearly, the Democratic Party has its counterpart to Romney. Obama can skillfully rouse the liberal base by scoring the rich, the powerful, and the privileged while delivering for the corporations. The words are there, but where is peace, health care, EFCA, strengthened Social Security and Medicare, enlightened foreign policy, tax fairness, a robust social safety net, Constitutional guarantees and other “liberal” goals promised four years ago?

Obama and Romney are the designated hitters for the ruling class. Where do working people find their political voice in this charade?

Once again, the New Year promises intense struggles against imperialism, against exploitation, and for social justice and sovereignty. But again, the focus of these struggles will likely remain on the periphery of the most advanced capitalist countries where workers and the poor are more organizationally and ideologically advanced and fervent in their commitment. Despite healthy developments like the Occupy movement and only-too-rare labor militancy, North America seems destined to confine the fight to the corrupted field of electoral politics, especially in the US, where the Presidential election will soon overshadow all other action and siphon off oppositional energies.

The uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East were unexpected and important developments in 2011. They brought masses into the streets and shook ruling elites throughout the region. Yet observers overestimated their political impact and potential and underestimated the ability of imperialism to exploit these events for its own interests. The billions committed at the G-20 summit, the rapid response of the “soft” imperialist Western NGO’s, and the violent intervention of NATO quickly re-directed or superseded many of these movements with regime changes beneficial to the NATO allies, an attempt to create a reprise of the infamous “color revolutions.”

Libya was the clearest example of this, with Syria now fixed in imperialism’s sights. Egypt, another target of imperialist intervention, continues to resist the “helpful” hand of the US State Department and many US-funded NGO’s that hope to shape the political landscape in a way friendly to US interests.

The same kind of struggle is emerging in Russia after the strong showing of Communists and their allies in the Parliamentary elections. Enjoying little popular support and with much encouragement and resources from the West, Russia’s liberals have sought to bring down the Medvedev/Putin government through mass protests against electoral irregularities. While electoral fraud is a fact and directed mainly at Russia’s Communists, while the Communists support the struggle for transparent elections, the liberals are seizing on the issue as their own best chance to better their marginal role in Russian politics.

At the same time, in the time-honored bourgeois tradition, Vladimir Putin –the ruling class candidate for Russian President in the forthcoming elections – has thrown up a Trojan horse candidate disguised as the opposition: an expatriate, playboy billionaire who owns a US NBA basketball team. The hope, of course, is that the billionaire’s resources will generate a hollow media campaign to confuse and split the opposition.

The deceptions and ruses of imperialism and its liberal chess pieces ultimately serve imperialism. The broad masses astutely see the call for “democracy” or “free elections” as useful only insofar as they actually lead to their empowerment and well-being. For working people, this is, and should be, the litmus test for their support.

In Russia, as in the Egyptian revolution of 2011, the masses will rally against bad leadership under the banner of “democracy,” but they want more than a hollow procedural victory; they want peace, a better life, a promising future. Twenty-first century liberals offer only the meager morsel of elections and not the nourishment of justice and prosperity. That is why Russian and Egyptian liberals fared so poorly in recent elections. That is why Russian Communists made big gains.

My hope for the New Year is that working-class-oriented, working-class-based movements, especially Communist and Workers Parties, will bring this nourishment to all the peoples of the world.

Zoltan Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

Alexander Eichler
The Huffington Post
December 29, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/young-people-socialism_n_1175218.html
Young people — the collegiate and post-college crowd, who have served as
the most visible face of the Occupy Wall Street movement — might be getting
more comfortable with socialism. That’s the surprising result from a Pew
Research Center poll that aims to measure American sentiments toward
different political labels.

The poll, published Wednesday, found that while Americans overall tend to
oppose socialism by a strong margin — 60 percent say they have a negative
view of it, versus just 31 percent who say they have a positive view —
socialism has more fans than opponents among the
18-29 crowd. Forty-nine percent of people in that age bracket say they have
a positive view of socialism; only
43 percent say they have a negative view.

And while those numbers aren’t very far apart, it’s noteworthy that they
were reversed just 20 months ago, when Pew conducted a similar poll. In that
survey, published May 2010, 43 percent of people age 18-29 said they had a
positive view of socialism, and 49 percent said their opinion was negative.

It’s not clear why young people have evidently begun to change their
thinking on socialism. In the past several years, the poor economy has had
any number of effects on young adults — keeping them at home with their
parents, making it difficult for them to get jobs, and likely depressing
their earning potential for years to come — that might have dampened
enthusiasm for the free market among this crowd.

Indeed, the Pew poll also found that just 46 percent of people age 18-29
have positive views of capitalism, and
47 percent have negative views — making this the only age group where
support for socialism outweighs support for capitalism.

Young people have also been among the most involved in the nationwide Occupy
movement, whose members have leveled pointed criticism at the capitalist
ethos and often called for a more equal distribution of American wealth.

In general, income inequality — which a Congressional Budget Office report
recently pointed out is at historic levels — has received more and more
attention in politics and the media since the Occupy movement launched in
mid-September. Usage of the term rose dramatically in news coverage
following the start of the protests, and politicians from Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid to President Barack Obama have used the movement’s
language to describe divisions in the American public.

Still, the nationwide Occupy demonstrations notwithstanding, socialism
doesn’t score very well in other age groups in the Pew poll, or across other
demographic categories.

Pew broke down its results by age, race, income and political affiliation,
as well as support for the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements. There
were only two other groups among whom socialism’s positives outweighed its
negatives — blacks, who say they favor socialism 55 to 36 percent, and
liberal Democrats, who say they favor socialism 59 to 39 percent. These were
also the only two groups to show net favor for socialism in the 2010 poll.

(2)
Little Change in Public’s Response to ‘Capitalism,’
‘Socialism’
A Political Rhetoric Test
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press December 28, 2011
http://www.people-press.org/2011/12/28/little-change-in-publics-response-to-capitalism-socialism
Overview

The recent Occupy Wall Street protests have focused public attention on what
organizers see as the excesses of America’s free market system, but
perceptions of capitalism – and even of socialism – have changed little
since early 2010 despite the recent tumult.

The American public’s take on capitalism remains mixed, with just slightly
more saying they have a positive
(50%) than a negative (40%) reaction to the term. That’s largely unchanged
from a 52% to 37% balance of opinion in April 2010.

Socialism is a negative for most Americans, but certainly not all.
Six-in-ten (60%) say they have a negative reaction to the word; 31% have a
positive reaction. Those numbers are little changed from when the question
was last asked in April 2010.

Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing – the reaction
is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive
among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and
conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower. Most notably,
liberal Democrats and Occupy Wall Street supporters are as likely to view
capitalism positively as negatively. And even among conservative Republicans
and Tea Party supporters there is a significant minority who react
negatively to capitalism.

These are among the findings of the latest national survey by the Pew
Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Dec. 7-11, 2011 among
1,521 adults that tests reactions to words frequently used in current
political discourse. Another term in the news, libertarian, continues to
receive a mixed public
reaction: 38% have a positive view, 37% negative, and nearly a quarter (24%)
have no opinion either way.
Interestingly, some of the most positive views of libertarianism come from
groups on both the left and the right of the political spectrum. People who
agree with the Tea Party movement see libertarianism positively by a 51% to
36% margin, as do liberal Democrats by a 47% to 32% margin. And while the
word libertarian receives a very positive reaction from younger Americans,
older people tend to view it negatively.

Both of the ideological descriptions used most frequently in American
politics – conservative and liberal – receive more positive than negative
reactions from the American public. But the positives for conservative (62%)
are higher than for liberal (50%).

This gap mainly reflects the balance of what people call themselves; more
people consistently call themselves conservative than liberal in public
opinion polling.
Those who think of themselves as politically “moderate”
give similarly positive assessments to both words.

As many Democratic strategists have argued, the term progressive receives a
far more positive reaction from the American public than the term liberal
(67% vs 50%), though the difference is primarily among Republicans.

`Socialism’ and `Capitalism’

The term capitalism elicits more positive (50%) than negative (40%)
reactions from the American public, but not by much. And while Americans of
different incomes and ideological perspectives offer different opinions on
capitalism, the divides are not as wide as on other terms measured.

More affluent Americans, as well as conservative Republicans, are more
likely to offer positive than negative reactions to capitalism by
two-to-one. And among people who agree with the Tea Party movement, 71% view
capitalism positively. Yet within each of these groups, a quarter or more
say they have a negative reaction to capitalism.

Notably, liberal Democrats and supporters of the Occupy Wall Street movement
are not overtly critical of capitalism. In fact, as many offer positive as
negative reactions in each of these groups.

By contrast, socialism is a far more divisive word, with wide differences of
opinion along racial, generational, socioeconomic and political lines. Fully
nine-in-ten conservative Republicans (90%) view socialism negatively, while
nearly six-in-ten liberal Democrats
(59%) react positively. Low-income Americans are twice as likely as
higher-income Americans to offer a positive assessment of socialism (43%
among those with incomes under $30,000, 22% among those earning $75,000 or
more).

People under age 30 are divided in their views of both capitalism and
socialism. But to Americans age 65 and older, socialism is clearly a
negative (72%), not a positive (13%), term.

Mixed Views of `Libertarian’

The American public remains divided over the word libertarian, with 38%
offering a positive reaction, 37% a negative reaction, and 24% offering that
they don’t have a reaction either way.

The steepest divide in reactions to the term libertarian are not political
but generational. By a 50% to 28% margin, people under age 30 have more
positive than negative feelings toward the term libertarian. Views are more
split among those age 30-64, while those age 65 and older offer more
negative (43%) than positive (25%) reactions.

Overall, there is only a small partisan divide when it comes to views of
libertarianism – Republicans offer slightly more negative reactions than do
Democrats or independents (45% vs. 35% and 37%, respectively).
Independents have more positive reactions (44%) than either Republicans
(34%) or Democrats (36%).

Liberal Democrats offer relatively positive assessments of libertarianism –
47% have a positive reaction and just 32% have a negative reaction. This is
matched by the positive ratings among people who agree with the Tea Party
movement – by a 51% to 36% margin they react positively to the word
libertarian.

`Conservative’ and `Liberal’

Republicans see the terms conservative and liberal in particularly stark
terms. By an 89% to 8% margin they view the former positively, and by a 70%
to 20% margin they view the latter negatively. Democrats are not as
universal in their views. By a 68% to 22% margin they have a positive
reaction to the word liberal, and at the same time they are equally likely
to have a positive as a negative reaction to the word conservative (47% vs.
44%).

There is a sharp difference by age when it comes to the word liberal – while
61% of people under age 30 react positively, just 34% of those age 65 and
older say the same. By contrast, reactions to the word conservative are
almost identical across all age groups.

Public reactions to the word progressive are far more favorable than to the
word liberal; two-thirds have a positive reaction to the former compared
with just half for the latter. There is very little difference among
Democrats – who view both terms favorably. The largest difference is among
Republicans most (55%) of whom have a positive reaction to the word
progressive, and a negative (70%) reaction to the word liberal.

About the Survey

The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted
December 7-11, 2011 among a national sample of 1,521 adults, 18 years of age
or older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia (914
respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 607 were
interviewed on a cell phone, including 284 who had no landline telephone).
The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the
direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A
combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used;
both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International.
Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish.

Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the
youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell
sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person
was an adult 18 years of age or older. For detailed information about our
survey methodology, see http://people-press.org/methodology/

The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an iterative
technique that matches gender, age, education, race, Hispanic origin,
region, and population density to parameters from the March 2010 Census
Bureau’s Current Population Survey. The sample also is weighted to match
current patterns of telephone status and relative usage of landline and cell
phones (for those with both), based on extrapolations from the 2010 National
Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact
that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater
probability of being included in the combined sample and adjusts for
household size within the landline sample.

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:

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon
request.

In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording
and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias
into the findings of opinion polls.

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people on the left that
will help them to interpret the world and to change it.

Submit via email: portside@portside.org

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate