This January, New York City elected Zohran Mamdani—a man who sees himself as a “democratic socialist”—as mayor of one of the world’s great financial centers. Of course, one election doesn’t make a country. But more and more Americans are now suggesting they might see themselves as democratic socialists, too. Might.
Gallup’s polling from 2010 to 2025 shows the split. Among Republicans, the numbers have barely moved: Favorable views of capitalism have stayed above 70 percent, socialism mostly below 20. Among Democrats, both have shifted. Favorable views of capitalism fell from 51 to 42 percent; socialism climbed from 50 to 66.
So a lot of Americans now say they’re against capitalism. Why?
Justin Callais is the economics editor for The Signal and the chief economist at the Archbridge Institute. Callais says many people—especially those who came of age after the Great Recession—have good reason to view capitalism dimly. The U.S. government bailed out the banks and left homeowners largely on their own, which is fair to resent. So when they hear “capitalism,” they’re picturing the American economy as it is now, one they feel hasn’t served them—or most Americans—the way an American economy should.
But even those reacting negatively to the word “capitalism” still tend to back free-market economics. Some polling shows they’d almost always prefer free competition among private companies over government planning. Altogether, it’s hard to interpret, Callais says—but there are reasons to think it’s not so much capitalism that’s losing favor as the idea of it …
Gustav Jönsson: What are you seeing in the public-opinion data?
Getty Images
Justin Callais: The U.S. may be as polarized as it’s been since the Civil War. People are dug into their trenches, doing whatever it takes to defend their own side and beat the other. And this is happening just as more and more people call themselves independents—disillusionment with both parties is now common.
The share of Americans who view capitalism favorably has slipped: 61 percent in 2010, 54 percent by 2025. That’s still more than half. But young Democrats—more than half of them—feel strongly negative about it. Views of socialism, meanwhile, have warmed. Even communism is trending up: not near a plurality, but climbing into the 20s and 30s.
Clay Rutledge, my colleague at the Archbridge Institute, ran a survey with the Harris Poll that dropped the words “capitalism” and “socialism” entirely. Instead, it gave people two scenarios and asked which better promotes human prosperity and progress. In the first, businesses compete freely with little government regulation; in the second, the government coordinates resources and priorities. Sixty-eight percent chose the free market—76 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of independents.
So the two polls sit side by side: “Capitalism” the word polls worse than it used to, but “the free market”—the thing—still polls well.
Jönsson: Part of the trouble in pinning down what people think of capitalism is pinning down what “capitalism” even means. Ask someone, “Do you approve of capitalism?” and they’ll answer—but they’re answering about different things, because they picture different systems. Make the question more specific and you have the opposite problem: Now they’re telling you about your definition, not theirs. It’s a hard thing to poll.
Callais: I completely agree—that’s one of the biggest problems with this kind of polling. The terms get murky the moment you ask what they mean to people. Asking how someone views capitalism is like asking how they feel about “neoliberalism”: Everyone has their own definition, so you’re collecting answers to different questions.
Last year, the Sheila and Robert Challey Institute at North Dakota State University surveyed about 2,000 college students on how they’d define “capitalism,” and gave them options. Roughly 60 percent picked free-market competition—private businesses competing to serve customers. About a quarter picked the “crony” version: Businesses using political connections and government favoritism to win unfair advantages at the public’s expense.
The terms get murky the moment you ask what they mean to people. Asking how someone views capitalism is like asking how they feel about “neoliberalism”: Everyone has their own definition, so you’re collecting answers to different questions.
If we can’t agree on what the word means, it’s hard to know what people are saying when they use it. Ask anyone, “Do you like it when businesses use political connections to get unfair advantages?” and nobody—maybe 1 percent—says yes.
Jönsson: It’s brilliant, if you’re the crony.
Callais: Exactly. That’d be the 1 percent.
To be fair, there are good reasons to see capitalism in a bad light. People picture the biggest capitalist country—the United States. And when they picture socialism or communism, they’re probably picturing China. Those two powerhouses are the mental images behind the two words.
So the good reasons track back to what’s happened inside the U.S.: the bailouts after the Great Recession and again during the Covid-19 pandemic. People also worry about “greedflation”—corporations using a period of rising prices as cover to push costs onto consumers. I think “greedflation” misses a lot of what’s actually going on. But the basic perception holds: When push came to shove, the government bailed out big corporations. Young people—who weren’t of age before the Great Recession—watched the world’s largest “capitalist system” rescue large companies. A negative view of that is completely reasonable.
Which is exactly why people who do value free markets need to make the case that government favors are the opposite of free markets, not an example of them.
Callais: And ask people about socialism and the answer depends on your definition. Spell it out as a system where the government controls resources, owns most property, and runs production, and views turn less favorable. But plenty of people define socialism as roughly free markets plus a strong welfare state—they’re really thinking of the Nordic countries, which they treat as the socialist ideal. The Nordics get a lot right. But that’s not socialism: They have free markets, relatively light regulation, strong property rights.
Jönsson: There’s been a radical shift in the Nordic countries, especially since the 1990s.
Callais: Exactly—big free-market reforms.
Jönsson: How much consensus would you say there is on the fundamentals?
Callais: People tend to like freedom, and the pillars of free-market economics poll well. People like private property. Free trade is contested—especially on the American right—but it still polls relatively well.
Getty Images
People really like being able to afford things—not just necessities but everything else. That’s the consensus the “abundance” movement, which wants to cut scarcity through deregulation and development, is trying to seize. The idea of “human freedom” has broad support, and “economic freedom” sits inside it. People like personal freedom: Most think you should be able to marry whomever you want, whatever their sex. And that extends to money—you should be free to do what you want with yours.
Jönsson: Are other countries showing the same patterns?
Callais: Much the same: People tend to like “economic freedom,” but the consensus falls apart the moment you say “capitalism” or “socialism.”
Ask someone in Russia, “Capitalism or socialism?” and the answer depends on what they remember. In the 1980s, the Soviet Union was a military and economic power, and some are nostalgic for that—for when their country was taken seriously. Others remember the same years as standing in bread lines, not as superpower glory.
You see this everywhere. People who moved to the U.S. from Cuba or Venezuela tend to vote Republican, largely because they’ve seen socialism at its worst—whatever their problems with the party, they want nothing in America that resembles what they left. I don’t think the U.S. is becoming a socialist country. But voting Republican is how they make sure of it.
Jönsson: So people reach these big abstractions—“socialism,” “capitalism”—through concrete examples. The Nordics, or Cuba, or America.
Callais: Right. Ask someone if they like country music and they might not think about the music at all—they think of one artist, or some terrible TV show, whether or not that says anything real about the genre.
Jönsson: There’s a well-known effect—well-known among certain psychologists, anyway—that when you ask people “What do you think of oysters?”, they don’t ask themselves “Do I like oysters?” They ask, “Do I like the kind of person who likes oysters?”
Callais: That’s the psychology of human reasoning. Clay makes this point a lot: Humans are a young species with unreliable intuitions. Maybe that’s why ordinary people and economists think about the economy so differently. Our intuitions evolved in small communities with no growth and no prosperity to speak of. The “hockey stick” of economic growth—where output suddenly shoots up almost vertically—is a recent thing. But our intuitions still come from our older instincts—from the small-village world of just trying to survive. A lot of human reasoning is just very badly suited to the world we find ourselves living in now.
Justin Callais, PhD, is Chief Economist at the Archbridge Institute. He leads the institute's "Social Mobility in the 50 States" project and conducts original research on economic development, upward mobility, and economic freedom. Dr. Callais received his Ph.D. in economics from Texas Tech University and his B.B.A. in economics from Loyola University New Orleans. He serves as an economic consultant at Callais Capital Management, and he is co-editor of Profectus Magazine, an online publication dedicated to human progress and flourishing. In addition, he publishes a regular newsletter on Substack titled "Debunking Degrowth."
Psychology of Flourishing
This January, New York City elected Zohran Mamdani—a man who sees himself as a “democratic socialist”—as mayor of one of the world’s great financial centers. Of course, one election doesn’t make a country. But more and more Americans are now suggesting they might see themselves as democratic socialists, too. Might.
Gallup’s polling from 2010 to 2025 shows the split. Among Republicans, the numbers have barely moved: Favorable views of capitalism have stayed above 70 percent, socialism mostly below 20. Among Democrats, both have shifted. Favorable views of capitalism fell from 51 to 42 percent; socialism climbed from 50 to 66.
So a lot of Americans now say they’re against capitalism. Why?
Justin Callais is the economics editor for The Signal and the chief economist at the Archbridge Institute. Callais says many people—especially those who came of age after the Great Recession—have good reason to view capitalism dimly. The U.S. government bailed out the banks and left homeowners largely on their own, which is fair to resent. So when they hear “capitalism,” they’re picturing the American economy as it is now, one they feel hasn’t served them—or most Americans—the way an American economy should.
But even those reacting negatively to the word “capitalism” still tend to back free-market economics. Some polling shows they’d almost always prefer free competition among private companies over government planning. Altogether, it’s hard to interpret, Callais says—but there are reasons to think it’s not so much capitalism that’s losing favor as the idea of it …
Gustav Jönsson: What are you seeing in the public-opinion data?
Justin Callais: The U.S. may be as polarized as it’s been since the Civil War. People are dug into their trenches, doing whatever it takes to defend their own side and beat the other. And this is happening just as more and more people call themselves independents—disillusionment with both parties is now common.
The share of Americans who view capitalism favorably has slipped: 61 percent in 2010, 54 percent by 2025. That’s still more than half. But young Democrats—more than half of them—feel strongly negative about it. Views of socialism, meanwhile, have warmed. Even communism is trending up: not near a plurality, but climbing into the 20s and 30s.
Clay Rutledge, my colleague at the Archbridge Institute, ran a survey with the Harris Poll that dropped the words “capitalism” and “socialism” entirely. Instead, it gave people two scenarios and asked which better promotes human prosperity and progress. In the first, businesses compete freely with little government regulation; in the second, the government coordinates resources and priorities. Sixty-eight percent chose the free market—76 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of independents.
So the two polls sit side by side: “Capitalism” the word polls worse than it used to, but “the free market”—the thing—still polls well.
Jönsson: Part of the trouble in pinning down what people think of capitalism is pinning down what “capitalism” even means. Ask someone, “Do you approve of capitalism?” and they’ll answer—but they’re answering about different things, because they picture different systems. Make the question more specific and you have the opposite problem: Now they’re telling you about your definition, not theirs. It’s a hard thing to poll.
Callais: I completely agree—that’s one of the biggest problems with this kind of polling. The terms get murky the moment you ask what they mean to people. Asking how someone views capitalism is like asking how they feel about “neoliberalism”: Everyone has their own definition, so you’re collecting answers to different questions.
Last year, the Sheila and Robert Challey Institute at North Dakota State University surveyed about 2,000 college students on how they’d define “capitalism,” and gave them options. Roughly 60 percent picked free-market competition—private businesses competing to serve customers. About a quarter picked the “crony” version: Businesses using political connections and government favoritism to win unfair advantages at the public’s expense.
If we can’t agree on what the word means, it’s hard to know what people are saying when they use it. Ask anyone, “Do you like it when businesses use political connections to get unfair advantages?” and nobody—maybe 1 percent—says yes.
Jönsson: It’s brilliant, if you’re the crony.
Callais: Exactly. That’d be the 1 percent.
To be fair, there are good reasons to see capitalism in a bad light. People picture the biggest capitalist country—the United States. And when they picture socialism or communism, they’re probably picturing China. Those two powerhouses are the mental images behind the two words.
So the good reasons track back to what’s happened inside the U.S.: the bailouts after the Great Recession and again during the Covid-19 pandemic. People also worry about “greedflation”—corporations using a period of rising prices as cover to push costs onto consumers. I think “greedflation” misses a lot of what’s actually going on. But the basic perception holds: When push came to shove, the government bailed out big corporations. Young people—who weren’t of age before the Great Recession—watched the world’s largest “capitalist system” rescue large companies. A negative view of that is completely reasonable.
Which is exactly why people who do value free markets need to make the case that government favors are the opposite of free markets, not an example of them.
Callais: And ask people about socialism and the answer depends on your definition. Spell it out as a system where the government controls resources, owns most property, and runs production, and views turn less favorable. But plenty of people define socialism as roughly free markets plus a strong welfare state—they’re really thinking of the Nordic countries, which they treat as the socialist ideal. The Nordics get a lot right. But that’s not socialism: They have free markets, relatively light regulation, strong property rights.
Jönsson: There’s been a radical shift in the Nordic countries, especially since the 1990s.
Callais: Exactly—big free-market reforms.
Jönsson: How much consensus would you say there is on the fundamentals?
Callais: People tend to like freedom, and the pillars of free-market economics poll well. People like private property. Free trade is contested—especially on the American right—but it still polls relatively well.
People really like being able to afford things—not just necessities but everything else. That’s the consensus the “abundance” movement, which wants to cut scarcity through deregulation and development, is trying to seize. The idea of “human freedom” has broad support, and “economic freedom” sits inside it. People like personal freedom: Most think you should be able to marry whomever you want, whatever their sex. And that extends to money—you should be free to do what you want with yours.
Jönsson: Are other countries showing the same patterns?
Callais: Much the same: People tend to like “economic freedom,” but the consensus falls apart the moment you say “capitalism” or “socialism.”
Ask someone in Russia, “Capitalism or socialism?” and the answer depends on what they remember. In the 1980s, the Soviet Union was a military and economic power, and some are nostalgic for that—for when their country was taken seriously. Others remember the same years as standing in bread lines, not as superpower glory.
You see this everywhere. People who moved to the U.S. from Cuba or Venezuela tend to vote Republican, largely because they’ve seen socialism at its worst—whatever their problems with the party, they want nothing in America that resembles what they left. I don’t think the U.S. is becoming a socialist country. But voting Republican is how they make sure of it.
Jönsson: So people reach these big abstractions—“socialism,” “capitalism”—through concrete examples. The Nordics, or Cuba, or America.
Callais: Right. Ask someone if they like country music and they might not think about the music at all—they think of one artist, or some terrible TV show, whether or not that says anything real about the genre.
Jönsson: There’s a well-known effect—well-known among certain psychologists, anyway—that when you ask people “What do you think of oysters?”, they don’t ask themselves “Do I like oysters?” They ask, “Do I like the kind of person who likes oysters?”
Callais: That’s the psychology of human reasoning. Clay makes this point a lot: Humans are a young species with unreliable intuitions. Maybe that’s why ordinary people and economists think about the economy so differently. Our intuitions evolved in small communities with no growth and no prosperity to speak of. The “hockey stick” of economic growth—where output suddenly shoots up almost vertically—is a recent thing. But our intuitions still come from our older instincts—from the small-village world of just trying to survive. A lot of human reasoning is just very badly suited to the world we find ourselves living in now.
Read The Signal. Sign up here.
Justin T. Callais
Justin Callais, PhD, is Chief Economist at the Archbridge Institute. He leads the institute's "Social Mobility in the 50 States" project and conducts original research on economic development, upward mobility, and economic freedom. Dr. Callais received his Ph.D. in economics from Texas Tech University and his B.B.A. in economics from Loyola University New Orleans. He serves as an economic consultant at Callais Capital Management, and he is co-editor of Profectus Magazine, an online publication dedicated to human progress and flourishing. In addition, he publishes a regular newsletter on Substack titled "Debunking Degrowth."
Gustav Jönsson
Share:
Related Posts
Why Gen Z Is Nostalgic For A World It Never Knew
I’ve Spent 25 Years Studying Loneliness. AI Is About To Make It Much Worse.
Americans Are Already Solving Digital Problems. We Just Haven’t Noticed