A survey polled people on how they felt about capitalism and socialism - positive or negative. But did the pollsters give a definition of these two terms or ask respondents to give their own definitions? I think not.
See "Is Rush Limbaugh's Country Gone?", Thomas B. Edsall, New York Times, 2012-11-19.
Capitalism is gathering resources to do something, whether it's to start a neighborhood grocery or to start an airline. Capitalism is not the buying and selling of stocks and schemes based on the stock; that is finance. Finance can raise capital, but the secondary markets of that capital are not capitalism.
Socialism is the government providing all the resources to do something and controlling how those resources are used. I don't think there is a country in the world where that happens for all projects. Even China has private capital ventures. Social welfare is the government providing various safety nets or investments that help people with needs that "capitalism" doesn't provide to everyone. Most developed countries have capitalist economies supported by social welfare programs.
Think of LM Ericsson in Sweden, Nokia in Finland, Siemens in Germany, and FIAT in Italy. These large capitalist companies aren't going away. Well, maybe Nokia will go away but that's because of technology, not government interference.
And many of these social welfare programs depend on a large number of private organizations, large and small. Germany has hundreds of insurance companies underpinning its health care. England has thousands of physicians in private practice who provide government listed services.
What I find ironic is that proponents of "capitalism" don't understand how "socialism" makes "capitalism" work better. If there weren't government-provided roads, sewers, schools, and yes, regulation there would be chaos. Chaos is something capitalists do not need or want. If there wasn't government-sponsored research, many new ideas would never even reached the capitalists who would implement them into products. If there is a good public health care system, then corporations don't have to fund them directly at great inefficiency. Wasn't it G. Richard Wagoner of General Motors who said that he wasn't an auto executive but a health care executive? See "U.S. Firms Losing Health Care Battle, GM Chairman Says", Ceci Connolly, Washington Post, 2005-02-11.
Be careful how you define things. If you define things incorrectly or too narrowly, you may miss out on many opportunities for a better society.
