I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at there.
When I say a majority of people, I mean a majority even in the developed west. If people were driven purely by a selfish desire to improve their own conditions, then even the ordinary middle class would be for socialism, because compared to those who control the wealth and the industry, they have nothing. We're all - assuming no one here happens to own a transnational corporation - dirt poor compared to the richest people in the world. If we took all their wealth and redistributed it evenly, we'd all benefit. Or most of us would.
But that's not the point. The point is that I don't think that is the case. I don't think people are driven purely by such self-interest. The idea of capitalist hegemony, while it may not be the best explanation, certainly seems better to me. Jon Stewart made a good point in his debate with Bill O'Reilly, when he asked "Why is it when a corporation takes advantage of cuts and loopholes, they're considered smart businessmen, but when someone takes advantage of something to keep them from being hungry, they're a moocher?"
I think that's very much related to that issue of why socialism is seen as being so unrealistic. In essence because we, very broadly speaking, are conditioned to accept a certain set of values, which are not actually reasonable values for most people. They're very sound values for people who have a lot of money, and it's very good for those people if others are convinced that these are good values. That's a textbook example of what hegemony means: You convince someone that your values are their values, and they will be your allies as you pursue your own interests. And a challenge to that set of values, even if it's a challenge that would benefit those people you've convinced to support you, will be seen as a challenge to all.