This is from the same article cited by Doug:
To give a sense of how radical is the disconnect between acceptable opinion, and the actual feelings of American voters, consider a pair of polls conducted by Rasmussen, the first in December 2008, right after Obama was elected, the second in April 2011. A broad sampling of Americans were asked which economic system they preferred: capitalism, or socialism? In 2008, 15% felt the USA would be better off adopting a socialist system; now, three years later, the number has gone up, to one in five. Even more striking was the breakdown by age: the younger the respondent, the more likely they were to reject a capitalist system. Among Americans between 15 and 25, a thin plurality still preferred capitalism: 37%, as opposed to 33% in favor of socialism (the rest were unsure). But think about what this means here. It means that almost two thirds of America’s youth think it might be a good idea to jettison the capitalist system entirely! This in a country where
most have never seen a single politician, TV pundit, or mainstream “expert” use the term “socialism” as anything but a term of condescension and abuse. Granted, for that very reason, it’s hard to know exactly what young people who say they prefer “socialism” actually think they’re embracing. Presumably not an economic system modeled on that of North Korea. What then? Sweden? Canada? It’s impossible to say. But in a way it’s also beside the point. Most Americans might not be sure what socialism is supposed to be, but they do know a great deal about capitalism, and if “socialism” means anything to them, it means “something, pretty much anything, other than that!” American citizens often hear that Obama is a socialist so maybe all they are saying is that they favor Obama type policies. I do not think Graeber's conclusion follows at all since socialism is understood as a different form of capitalism perhaps as Graeber notes something such as in Sweden or Canada both of which are rapidly retreating any gains made by earlier social democrats in creating a decent safety net and welfare state. I doubt very much that they are thinking of the socialization of the major means of production of distribution and exchange, abolishing private ownership of the means of production and producing on the basis of need rather than profit. Cheers Ken
________________________________ From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2011 1:14:47 PM Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] OWS Demands working group: jobs for all!
Here's a statement of the principle, by a very sophisticated guy (emphasis mine):
This is where I must admit my own position is particularly confusing. On the one hand, this is exactly the kind of attitude I have been arguing for for years. I like to describe myself precisely as a “small-a anarchist.” That is, I believe in anarchist principles—mutual aid, direct action, the idea building the new, free society in the shell of the old—but I’ve never felt a need to declare allegiance to any particular anarchist school (Syndicalists, Platformists, etc). Above all, I am happy to work with anyone, whatever they call themselves, willing to work on anarchist principles—which in America today, has largely come to mean, ***a refusal to work with or through the government or other institutions which ultimately rely on the threat of force, and a dedication to horizontal democracy, to treating each other as we believe free men and women in a genuinely free society would treat each other.*** Even the commitment to direct action, so
often confused with breaking windows or the like, really refers to the refusal of any politics of protest, that merely appeals to the authorities to behave differently, and the determination instead to act for oneself, and to do what one thinks is right, regardless of law and authority.
On Oct 20, 2011, at 2:02 PM, Bhaskar Sunkara wrote:
> What? The argument is the argument that we were discussing in this thread,
> an ideological opposition to making demands on the state. The possible
> structural problems of "consensus" (versus majority decision making) in
> allowing a small minority to potentially block a decision like this -- what
> Richard brings up -- is a real concern.
>
> 2011/10/20 Ferenc Molnar <ferenc_molnar at hotmail.com>
>
>>
>> leninstombblog wrote: "Unless there are Tea Party infiltrators,
>> the argument against demands on the state certainly sounds like an anarchist
>> one. This is where consensus decision-making could potentially reach its
>> limits, if a small number of people were able to block this demand."
>>
>>
>> FM: What anarchist? What argument? Please produce an anarchist with an
>> argument from OWS or this is all speculation.
>>
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk