Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Young people have come of age at a time when it looks like capitalism is failing. After WWII hourly wages and economic productivity increased in tandem so everybody benefited from economic growth. Around 1980 they decoupled and the proceeds of growth went primarily to the rich. At first this didn't impact people's political outlook but as it accelerated after 2001 recession and then the 2008 financial collapse it has led to a fall in living standards that has affected the young the most.
The New Deal was enacted primary to save capitalism from its' own excesses, and it worked up until our society went in a different direction beginning with Reagan. A similar effort at reform is required again if capitalism is to be preserved.
The right likes to refer to things like universal health care as socialism, that isn't what socialism really is, but rather social democracy. The dangerous things to the left of that are real socialism. The right has made a major mistake in branding social democracy (which many people want) as socialism because they are then opening the door to people being receptive to things like collectivization and Trotskyite democratic communism (which would be a disaster).
I'm thinking there will be further moves toward socialism, but not because of the younger demographic - it'll be because the formerly comfortable middle class boomers and GenXers are living longer without the money to do so, some because of choice (laziness), but more often because they've been rendered economically non-viable/non-employable as they hit their 50s. Entitlements to seniors will keep going up and up as this group will remain one of the largest active voting blocks for the next 20-30 years and this will become the basis for different social programs to try and protect what's left of the still employable middle class.
I can see the logic - but the research I linked to finds that the vast majority of older people in the US are negative about what they consider to be 'socialism'. So I get how demographic shift could increase support for those (arguably 'socialistic') policies - but perhaps we would also have to conclude that those older people do not see the entitlements they gain with age as anything to do with 'socialism'?
Young people have come of age at a time when it looks like capitalism is failing. After WWII hourly wages and economic productivity increased in tandem so everybody benefited from economic growth. Around 1980 they decoupled and the proceeds of growth went primarily to the rich. At first this didn't impact people's political outlook but as it accelerated after 2001 recession and then the 2008 financial collapse it has led to a fall in living standards that has affected the young the most.
The New Deal was enacted primary to save capitalism from its' own excesses, and it worked up until our society went in a different direction beginning with Reagan. A similar effort at reform is required again if capitalism is to be preserved.
The right likes to refer to things like universal health care as socialism, that isn't what socialism really is, but rather social democracy. The dangerous things to the left of that are real socialism. The right has made a major mistake in branding social democracy (which many people want) as socialism because they are then opening the door to people being receptive to things like collectivization and Trotskyite democratic communism (which would be a disaster).
Really interesting. Would you be prepared to give an idea of your age, or to say anything about your economic background?
It's worth noting that support for capitalism among the young has only fallen a little - it's the increase in support for/fall in opposition to socialism that has really moved. This might suggest, as you seem to, that many people have bought the (arguably mis-)characterisation of the New Deal or Obamacare as 'socialist' - but to the presumable chagrin of the conservatives who seem to lead the way on this, the many of the young don't see this as a bad thing. This is a situation that could leave older people on both left and right scratching their heads!
I simply think this means that the younger generation understands that we truly have a mixed economy that includes socialist aspects so socialism in and of itself isn't this great evil to be avoided like the plague--and might even be seen as a check on unfettered capitalism.
May I also ask for an idea of your age and economic background?
Are there any interventions that you could envisage being made at present in the US that you would consider to be 'socialist aspects'? Which would those be?
Or, that older Americans oppose socialism [and they do very strongly, by 72% to 12% for those 65+] because they associate it with Stalin and Mao (who, some would argue, were not practicing what most socialists would advocate)?
Stalin and Mao were communists, not socialists. Socialism and Communism have some similar aspects but are also very, very different.
I can see the logic - but the research I linked to finds that the vast majority of older people in the US are negative about what they consider to be 'socialism'. So I get how demographic shift could increase support for those (arguably 'socialistic') policies - but perhaps we would also have to conclude that those older people do not see the entitlements they gain with age as anything to do with 'socialism'?
Good point - "entitlements" are more and more equated with "rights" in much of the public's mind.
However, if you follow my logic through, an expected outcome could be that funding for these growing entitlements increases the tax burden on younger generations thereby pushing them to less socialist politics and more libertarian thinking in terms of economics. OTOH, they may sense themselves in danger in the future and act accordingly by demanding more wealth distribution. It'll be interesting, but IMO, in the short term it's going to get ugly as the boomers (of which I'm one) increasingly find themselves not as prepared for long-term retirement as they thought.
Historically, I believe socialism has been less violent and oppressive than communism.
But, many (most?) communists also consider themselves to be socialists. Stalin lead the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. I think the link you posted is an over-simplification of two terms that have lots of areas of cross-over, and areas of dispute.
ETA that the above is my view, which is not really what the thread is about. I'd be interested to know if you think of Brazil as a socialist country?
I think it should be noted that people under 30 did not grow up in a red-baiting culture. I mean, I'm 34, and I remember the Soviet days only dimly myself. My actual political awakening basically only began after the Berlin Wall fell down, and the Soviet Union was looking pretty inoffensive. Thus there's no reason for younger people to be scared of socialism, because there are no real association with a government that the U.S. is in conflict with.
As to the broader point about socialism, it's not at base about ensuring that everyone has a common wage, about government control, or broad social programs. All socialism requires is the means of production is owned in some respect by the workers rather than by the capitalist class. On a theoretical basis this could take many different directions - everything from Stalinism to an anarchist system where all businesses are owned by the workers and trade with one another in a "free market" system.
Good point - "entitlements" are more and more equated with "rights" in much of the public's mind.
However, if you follow my logic through, an expected outcome could be that funding for these growing entitlements increases the tax burden on younger generations thereby pushing them to less socialist politics and more libertarian thinking in terms of economics. OTOH, they may sense themselves in danger in the future and act accordingly by demanding more wealth distribution. It'll be interesting, but IMO, in the short term it's going to get ugly as the boomers (of which I'm one) increasingly find themselves not as prepared for long-term retirement as they thought.
Yes it will be very interesting to see how that particular area of change plays out!
It's worth observing that we've been talking about 'socialistic' (or, some would say, 'social democratic') interventions carried out by government via taxation. But might other forms of socialism emerge in the US? The tech underground is often seen as a hotbed for the libertarian right, but could a 'left-libertarian' movement emerge, organising economic activities on a cooperative basis away from both capitalism and government?
I think it should be noted that people under 30 did not grow up in a red-baiting culture. I mean, I'm 34, and I remember the Soviet days only dimly myself. My actual political awakening basically only began after the Berlin Wall fell down, and the Soviet Union was looking pretty inoffensive. Thus there's no reason for younger people to be scared of socialism, because there are no real association with a government that the U.S. is in conflict with.
As to the broader point about socialism, it's not at base about ensuring that everyone has a common wage, about government control, or broad social programs. All socialism requires is the means of production is owned in some respect by the workers rather than by the capitalist class. On a theoretical basis this could take many different directions - everything from Stalinism to an anarchist system where all businesses are owned by the workers and trade with one another in a "free market" system.
This is really interesting - that you, as someone only just outside the 18-29 group, are quite open to the idea of socialism but also see it as something that would, at least I presume from what you say, require the dismantling of capitalism, since the 'means of production' (can you expand on that at all?) would have to be taken over by the 'workers'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
