Support for "free market" capitalism in the U.S. has collapsed, along with the financial system and the global economy as a whole, according to a recent poll.

Much has been made of late of growing numbers of Americans who view socialism and, yes, even communism as better alternatives to capitalism. As many as on-third of Americans seem to support increased social democracy, public control over the economy, and more public options in society.

Even more more significantly is the sharp decrease in support for "free market" capitalism. According to a GlobeScan poll, a mere half of people around the world agree that "free market" capitalism is the "best economic system." Globally this tepid support for capitalism remains unchanged over recent years.

In the U.S., however, attitudes towards capitalism have undergone rapid and radical change over the past few years. For example, in 2002 about 8 in 10 Americans supported capitalism. In 2010, only 59 percent agreed with the statement that it is the "best economic system", a mere 5 percentage point higher than the global total.

Indeed, as the GlobeScan poll revealed, fewer Americans support capitalism than Chinese people.

No wonder. As 25 million Americans lack jobs, major multinational corporations seem to get richer, pay fewer taxes, and their CEOs buy government policies, e.g, Koch brothers of Koch Industries.

These changes (dare one say improvements) in public opinion in the U.S. have also coincided with the largest labor movement uprising since the 1930s, an uprising begun in Wisconsin and which may change the political landscape in the 2012 elections.

The collapse of the myth of "free market" capitalism is essential to a basic understanding of capitalism, writes University of Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang in his recent book, 23 Things They Didn't Tell You About Capitalism (2). While Chang is a supporter of capitalism, the poll cited above shows that for many working Americans with this understanding has come a desire for a different system or process – even if they haven't yet joined the ranks of those who support socialism or communism.

According to Chang, proponents of "free market" capitalism had convinced many of us that markets free of government intervention work best. Resources, innovation, incentive are blocked when governments get involved in the marketplace. Indeed, government intervention reflects only "politically motivated interference," the "free marketeers" claim. Almost word for word these are the talking points of Republican opposition to environmental regulation, health reform, and Wall Street oversight.

Ignored in this set of claims is that from its very beginnings, capitalism has been highly politicized, Chang potions out. Take the first attempts by the British to regulate child labor in 1819, for example. Their first laws focused only on the children laboring in the country's grueling cotton factories, confining child labor to 12 year-olds and older and to less than about 70 hours per week. Presaging the likes of Newt Gingrich, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, and corporate backers of the tea party, opponents of the law decried this government "interference" in the market on ideological grounds, claiming it interfered with legal contracts between small children and rich and powerful cotton manufacturers.

Chang writes, "Today, even the most ardent free-market proponents in Britain or other rich countries would not think of bringing child labor back as part of the market liberalization package that they so want" (2). Of course, Cahng wrote this in 2010 probably before hearing of the likes Republican politicians in Maine and Missouri who are the trying to roll back child labor restrictions or to eliminate funding for enforcement of laws that prohibit child labor.

Objections to child labor laws, then and now, hinge on a defense of allowing corporations to hire workers they can pay the least – exploit the most – and gain the most profit from (3).

While Chang takes this government protection of children from exploitation "for granted," citing the fact that mot people accept such laws as "natural," it is clear that Republican politicians favor returning to a 19th century version of super-exploitative capitalism. Chang cites broad public support for environmental protections as a form of government intervention that is viewed positively. His remarks are supported by recent public opinion surveys in the U.S. that show strong support for federal agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, even among Republican voters.

Chang cites a long list of ways governments regulate markets: medicines, alcohol and drugs, food supply, firearms, slavery, human body parts, legal practice, stock markets, corporate audits, licenses for just about everything, banking, real estate and construction, rent controls, minimum wages, immigration, interest rates, and international trade. To this list, labor union membership and collective bargaining between employees and employers could be added.

Of particular note of this discussion was the government bailout of Wall Street after the financial collapse. Some of the most ardent "free market" capitalists – many of whom were perpetrators of the events that led to the collapse – became "socialists," as some major mainstream media noted in the aftermath of that crisis, ironically fueled by deregulation motivated by "free market" ideology.

Chang argues that the myth of the "free market" rests on the fact that government intervention has become so natural a part of everyday life (and beneficial) that we do not see it, we do not notice it anymore. Further, he states, "[t]here is no scientifically defined boundary for free  market." In fact, economics is no science at all; it is "a political exercise" (8, 10). Advocates for a "free market" operate under pretense then. "Their ideological cloak is to pretend that their politics is not really political, but rather is an objective economic truth, while other people's politics is political. However, they are as politically motivated as their opponents" (10). Simply put, ideology, interests and the drive for power define the nature of this political struggle, not science, not objective facts, not inherent moral or natural truths.

"Free market" ideology, then, is little more than a sham cover for special interest struggles within the capitalist framework, from which working families derive neither serious benefit nor have an material interest in continuing to believe in.

Photo: Working families have felt what happens when Wall Street gets a free hand in the market. Now they want government to take their side. (by Bill Burke/AFL-CIO)