I'm not convinced that the people in these surveys always know what they're talking about. We've all had the experience of talking to a right-winger who deflects to some bullshit like "We don't live in capitalism, this is corporatism." I don't know if I'd necessarily categorize response to certain words as growing anticapitalist sentiment, my gut instinct is to say there's a general breakdown of reality and less of a tight grip over what words mean. I have a younger relative who describes himself as anticapitalist, but he's a huge chud who announces his views like "I hate capitalism. What we need instead is a truly free market." So just utter gibberish. He describes Trump as anticapitalist.
If I can make more guesses, it could be that younger people do not resonate whatsoever with the political concerns of older Americans, so the terminology doesn't stick. The youngest adults are 20 years too young to have any memories of the Soviet Union existing.
Then again it's not all cynical. Young adults do seem more activated in general. Guess we gotta see where this leads.
It's also an opening for education and radicalizing leftwards, though. A big part of pro-capitalist/anti-communist propaganda is getting even people who are ignorant of those concepts to viscerally respond to them. Think of how many people couldn't tell you hardly anything accurate about communism but who will loudly proclaim how anti-communist they are at the drop of a hat. The point is to rewire people's brains so they don't even consider it -- no argument, no debate, just communism == bad. This is why you get stuff like leftist policies polling well until you attach the word "socialist" or "communist" to them, or why you can individually get people on board with all sorts of leftist policies but they still hesitate when you bring up the s- or c-word.
It works the same way with capitalism, too. People have been successfully propagandized to hear "capitalism" and think capitalism == good; no deeper examination required. What this poll might reflect is that level of propaganda breaking down. This doesn't necessarily mean people are rejecting capitalism (as @axont pointed out), but it might mean that capitalism == good barrier is down and people will be more receptive to criticisms of it.
No doubt. It's both an opportunity and a danger. Along your lines of thinking on a propagandized populace, I pretty much never use the s or c words when talking to new people and in doing so find that they're pretty open to a lot of actually socialist/anti-capitalist ideas. Lots of folks like the idea of worker-owned enterprises, for example, which is a little cartoon version of a socialist society. Or they understand the problem of power imbalances and the inherent conflict between between owners and workers when, e.g., discussing Medicare for All (and they sympathize with the worker camp pretty much every time).
The challenge will be to translate this into coherent, disciplined, organized action. That propaganda also teaches them that political activism begins and ends at the confines of bourgeois democracy. Hell, even worse than that: the confines of the propaganda they've absorbed from bourgeois democratic politicians and PR consultants. Outside of when they join a party or otherwise socialist organizing group, I haven't had much luck in getting libs to actually do anything outside of those confines. Consequently, they end up being little better than a neolib.
We’ve all had the experience of talking to a right-winger who deflects to some bullshit like “We don’t live in capitalism, this is corporatism.”
And this is why theory is important. Even just reading the first chapter of Lenin's Imperialism gives you a "in a nutshell" education of how free-market capitalism inevitably becomes monopolistic cartels that dominate western economic systems.
Having that knowledge under your belt helps you explain to others that the no matter what reform is done to capitalism, it inevitably returns to it's end-stage: imperialism.
But thats like the worst book to read on that issue.
Where Marx comes from an abstract view of capitalism and is therefore able to describe it's laws of motions as they develop from it's inner logic, Lenins views are clearly byproducts of the first world war and the German war economy as he is heavily inspired by Hilferding. They are basically an affront towards Marx since in their view it's not economic laws that determine the capitalist reality but the personal rule of the capitalist class.
"Domination, and the violence that is associated with it, such are the relationships that are typical of the “latest phase of capitalist development”; this is what inevitably had to result, and has resulted, from the formation of all-powerful economic monopolies." (Lenin)
I would give anything for Marx himself to respond to this.
"Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system."(Lenin)
This is the key to understand the Hilferding/Lenin misconception . They view the protocapitalist atributes of the Kaiserreich (really an infancy of capitalism in what is still a Junkers Germany) as the highest and latest stage. All that is left to do is to make the monopoly universal in the hands of the state and replace the personal violent rule of the capitalists with the personal violent rule of the communist party. I guess until your country explodes into oligarchies.
Theory is important, but theory should mean Marx first, second and third. Lenin was a fairly good politician, but his theory sucks.
I'm not convinced that the people in these surveys always know what they're talking about. We've all had the experience of talking to a right-winger who deflects to some bullshit like "We don't live in capitalism, this is corporatism." I don't know if I'd necessarily categorize response to certain words as growing anticapitalist sentiment, my gut instinct is to say there's a general breakdown of reality and less of a tight grip over what words mean. I have a younger relative who describes himself as anticapitalist, but he's a huge chud who announces his views like "I hate capitalism. What we need instead is a truly free market." So just utter gibberish. He describes Trump as anticapitalist.
If I can make more guesses, it could be that younger people do not resonate whatsoever with the political concerns of older Americans, so the terminology doesn't stick. The youngest adults are 20 years too young to have any memories of the Soviet Union existing.
Then again it's not all cynical. Young adults do seem more activated in general. Guess we gotta see where this leads.
At the same time, not knowing what you're talking about is an important part of getting swept up in a quasi-fascist movement.
It's also an opening for education and radicalizing leftwards, though. A big part of pro-capitalist/anti-communist propaganda is getting even people who are ignorant of those concepts to viscerally respond to them. Think of how many people couldn't tell you hardly anything accurate about communism but who will loudly proclaim how anti-communist they are at the drop of a hat. The point is to rewire people's brains so they don't even consider it -- no argument, no debate, just communism == bad. This is why you get stuff like leftist policies polling well until you attach the word "socialist" or "communist" to them, or why you can individually get people on board with all sorts of leftist policies but they still hesitate when you bring up the s- or c-word.
It works the same way with capitalism, too. People have been successfully propagandized to hear "capitalism" and think capitalism == good; no deeper examination required. What this poll might reflect is that level of propaganda breaking down. This doesn't necessarily mean people are rejecting capitalism (as @axont pointed out), but it might mean that capitalism == good barrier is down and people will be more receptive to criticisms of it.
No doubt. It's both an opportunity and a danger. Along your lines of thinking on a propagandized populace, I pretty much never use the s or c words when talking to new people and in doing so find that they're pretty open to a lot of actually socialist/anti-capitalist ideas. Lots of folks like the idea of worker-owned enterprises, for example, which is a little cartoon version of a socialist society. Or they understand the problem of power imbalances and the inherent conflict between between owners and workers when, e.g., discussing Medicare for All (and they sympathize with the worker camp pretty much every time).
The challenge will be to translate this into coherent, disciplined, organized action. That propaganda also teaches them that political activism begins and ends at the confines of bourgeois democracy. Hell, even worse than that: the confines of the propaganda they've absorbed from bourgeois democratic politicians and PR consultants. Outside of when they join a party or otherwise socialist organizing group, I haven't had much luck in getting libs to actually do anything outside of those confines. Consequently, they end up being little better than a neolib.
We've really gotta get these people into parties.
Yeah, that's a legitimate danger and I hate it.
And this is why theory is important. Even just reading the first chapter of Lenin's Imperialism gives you a "in a nutshell" education of how free-market capitalism inevitably becomes monopolistic cartels that dominate western economic systems.
Having that knowledge under your belt helps you explain to others that the no matter what reform is done to capitalism, it inevitably returns to it's end-stage: imperialism.
But thats like the worst book to read on that issue. Where Marx comes from an abstract view of capitalism and is therefore able to describe it's laws of motions as they develop from it's inner logic, Lenins views are clearly byproducts of the first world war and the German war economy as he is heavily inspired by Hilferding. They are basically an affront towards Marx since in their view it's not economic laws that determine the capitalist reality but the personal rule of the capitalist class.
"Domination, and the violence that is associated with it, such are the relationships that are typical of the “latest phase of capitalist development”; this is what inevitably had to result, and has resulted, from the formation of all-powerful economic monopolies." (Lenin)
I would give anything for Marx himself to respond to this.
"Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system."(Lenin) This is the key to understand the Hilferding/Lenin misconception . They view the protocapitalist atributes of the Kaiserreich (really an infancy of capitalism in what is still a Junkers Germany) as the highest and latest stage. All that is left to do is to make the monopoly universal in the hands of the state and replace the personal violent rule of the capitalists with the personal violent rule of the communist party. I guess until your country explodes into oligarchies. Theory is important, but theory should mean Marx first, second and third. Lenin was a fairly good politician, but his theory sucks.
capitalism is when things are good, if things are bad it can't be capitalism