Why So Many Millennials Are Socialists

osan

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
16,866
The real reason is that they are willfully ignorant, avaricious, cowardly, sandless, corrupt, lazy assholes. But this article is still not bad.

ETA: Not sure how this got posted here... I thought I was somewhere else. Please move to wherever you feel would be the best location.


Since when did socialism become en vogue? It seems like only a few years ago being called a socialist in American politics was an insult. Today, however, presidential candidate Bernie Sanders—a self-avowed socialist—is quickly rising in the polls, and millennials are largely driving his support.

The Iowa caucus entrance poll found Sanders garnered an overwhelming 84 percent of the 30 and under vote. Exit polls from New Hampshire found 85 percent support for Sanders among voters ages 30 and younger. What is going on?


Millennials are simply not that alarmed by the idea of socialism. For instance, a national Reason-Rupe survey found that 53 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds view socialism favorably, compared to only a quarter of Americans over 55. A more recent January YouGov survey found that 43 percent of respondents younger than 30 viewed socialism favorably, compared to 32 percent thinking favorably of capitalism.

ep1-300x248.jpg


In fact, millennials are the only age cohort in which more are favorable toward socialism than unfavorable. Young people are also more comfortable with a political candidate who describes him- or herself as a socialist. A May 2015 YouGov national survey found that 37 percent of millennials reported being “comfortable” (29 percent) or “enthusiastic” (8 percent) with the prospects of a socialist candidate. Among those older than 45, only about half that agree. So why are millennials so much more favorable toward socialism compared to older Americans?

Millennials Don’t Know What Socialism Is

First, millennials don’t seem to know what socialism is, and how it’s different from other styles of government. The definition of socialism is government ownership of the means of production—in other words, true socialism requires that government run the businesses. However, a CBS/New York Times survey found that only 16 percent of millennials could accurately define socialism, while 30 percent of Americans over 30 could. (Incidentally, 56 percent of Tea Partiers accurately defined it. In fact, those most concerned about socialism are those best able to explain it.)

With so few able to define socialism, perhaps less surprisingly a Reason-Rupe national survey found college-aged millennials were about as likely to have a favorable view of socialism (58 percent) as they were about capitalism (56 percent). While attitudes toward capitalism remain fairly constant across age groups, support for socialism drops off significantly when moving to older age cohorts. Only about a quarter of Americans older than 55 have a favorable view of socialism.

ep2-297x300.jpg


Conservatives often use the word “socialist” like an epithet, but they don’t realize that neither their audience nor even their political opponents really know what the word even means. This may help explain the inability of free-market advocates to communicate with them using phrases like “big government,” “socialism,” and “collectivism.”

So what do millennials think socialism is? A 2014 Reason-Rupe survey asked respondents to use their own words to describe socialism and found millennials who viewed it favorably were more likely to think of it as just people being kind or “being together,” as one millennial put it. Others thought of socialism as just a more generous social safety net where “the government pays for our own needs,” as another explained it.

If socialism is framed the way Sanders does, as just being a generous social safety net, it’s much harder to undermine among millennials. This narrative says government is a benevolent caretaker and pays for everybody’s needs (from everybody’s pockets), along the lines of the Obama administration’s Life of Julia montage.


More at: http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/15/why-so-many-millennials-are-socialists/
 
Last edited:
Lots of people of all ages don't understand socialism and don't recognize it staring them in the face.

First, millennials don’t seem to know what socialism is, and how it’s different from other styles of government. The definition of socialism is government ownership of the means of production—in other words, true socialism requires that government run the businesses.
True, but Mises goes even further to divide "socialism" broadly into German and Russian styles. It's a must-read on the subject. Mises explains socialism better than most self-styled socialists, IMHO. http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1060/Mises_0069_EBk_v6.0.pdf

from page 188 said:
The essence of Socialism is this: All the means of production are in the exclusivecontrol of the organized community. This and this alone is Socialism. All otherdefinitions are misleading.It is possible to believe that Socialism can only be brought about under quite definitepolitical and cultural conditions. Such a belief however is no justification forconfining the term to one particular form of Socialism and withholding it from allother conceivable ways of realizing the socialist ideal. Marxian socialists have beenvery zealous in commending their own particular brand of Socialism as the only trueSocialism and in insisting that all other socialist ideals and methods of realizingSocialism have nothing to do with genuine Socialism. Politically this attitude of thesocialists has been extremely astute. It would have greatly increased the difficulties oftheir campaign if they had been prepared to admit that their ideal had anything incommon with the ideals advocated by the leaders of other parties. They would neverhave rallied millions of discontented Germans to their banners if they had openlyadmitted that their aims were not fundamentally different from those of the governingclasses of the Prussian state. If a Marxian had been asked before October 1917 inwhat way his Socialism differed from the Socialism of other movements, especiallyfrom that of the Conservatives, he would have replied that under Marxian Socialism,Democracy and Socialism were indissolubly united, and moreover that MarxianSocialism was a stateless Socialism because it intended to abolish the State.We have seen already how much these arguments are worth, and as a matter of fact,since the victory of the Bolsheviks, they have rapidly disappeared from the list ofMarxian commonplaces. At any rate the conceptions of democracy and statelessnesswhich the Marxians hold today are quite different from those which they heldpreviously.But the Marxians might have answered the question another way. They might havesaid that their Socialism was revolutionary, as opposed to the reactionary andconservative Socialism of others. Such an answer leads much sooner to a recognition
 
Students who started school after about 1965 are fully divorced from true academics. Look at your kids' textbooks. You will not find a single source in the bibliography written before 1965. This means these students are raised in their own era, with almost no sense of history. They do not know how an economy works. They have held very little cash, so they don't understand it. I see a lot of students in my line of work. I have yet to meet one who knows how to count money. There is the high school *honor student* who tried to pay me $12 for a $9 purchase. "I'm, like, bad with money."

The separation of people from cash has done great harm. Numbers on paper have to mean something, and that only happens when one understands cash.
 
I thought younger generations typically favored more leftist policies until they got older and spent some time in the real world, why are we acting like this is new :confused:
 
Students who started school after about 1965 are fully divorced from true academics. Look at your kids' textbooks. You will not find a single source in the bibliography written before 1965. This means these students are raised in their own era, with almost no sense of history. They do not know how an economy works. They have held very little cash, so they don't understand it. I see a lot of students in my line of work. I have yet to meet one who knows how to count money. There is the high school *honor student* who tried to pay me $12 for a $9 purchase. "I'm, like, bad with money."

The separation of people from cash has done great harm. Numbers on paper have to mean something, and that only happens when one understands cash.
OMFG... I was born a few decades after '65 but did learn mathematics. A lot of it came from my parents, though, so IDK if I count. ~shrugs~
 
We home schooled our daughter. She jolly well knows the value of money. It was surprising to look over resources at our urban library. That's how I figured out that the writers just spew crap and cite each other to validate the original crap. Seriously. Start looking at bibliographies.
 
Millennial here.

I do my part to advance the cause of Liberty...but I often get no traction. I study my ass off so I am knowledgeable. I dig deep into the wells of wisdom that our ancestors have left to us. I often feel as though I am the only one in the world who understands.

But I'm not. There is a oppressed minority of small L libertarians, conservatives, constitutionalists, classical liberals, and any other ridiculous title the powers that be deem necessary to place upon us.

We are here. We are learning. We are awaiting the time that we can be placed into a position to make a true difference in society. To carry the light of liberty into the darkness of tyranny.

But now is not that time. This is older generations world right now. Own it. Take it back. Do not continue to allow your peers to lead us down this Road to Surfdom.

Please. Take the country back now while it is still possible....before we oppressed minority are forced to take the principle lesson from our own American Revolution...

"When in the Course of Human Events, it becomes necessary..."
 
Simple answer to the question posed in the thread title: they are taught to be socialists.

Me? Im Gen-X, as I suspect many of you are as well. The Lost Generation.
 

THE CATHEDRAL (NRX TERMINOLOGY)
Copied over from another blog of mine.

I came across this definition, and found it useful as my own views parallel it.

The Cathedral — The self-organizing consensus of Progressives and Progressive ideology represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service. A term coined by blogger Mencius Moldbug. The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. Community writers have enumerated the platform of Progressivism as women’s suffrage, prohibition, abolition, federal income tax, democratic election of senators, labor laws, desegregation, popularization of drugs, destruction of traditional sexual norms, ethnic studies courses in colleges, decolonization, and gay marriage. A defining feature of Progressivism is that “you believe that morality has been essentially solved, and all that’s left is to work out the details.” Reactionaries see Republicans as Progressives, just lagging 10-20 years behind Democrats in their adoption of Progressive norms.

In particular the comment that the “Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil” matches with my previously expressed view that the only conspiracy is that there is no conspiracy – if by that one means a co-ordinated campaign along the lines of Communist infiltration and subordination.

What do you see the Ron Paul movement as, given that it doesn't see itself as Republican but rather an outcast and minority ideology?
 
How about all their lives they've seen credit buy anything you want with little to no consequences. So they think you can have it all.
 
How about all their lives they've seen credit buy anything you want with little to no consequences. So they think you can have it all.
IDK where you live, but I didn't experience that. Bankruptcy attorneys have been doing well as long as I can remember. There were ads on the teevee often in teh 90s.
 
The real reason is that they are willfully ignorant, avaricious, cowardly, sandless, corrupt, lazy assholes.

If you are broke, cannot afford college or training, living in a city or near one with an extremely high cost of living and the only available jobs barely pay or do not pay enough to keep you from ending up homeless how hell do you think people are going to vote?

It amazes me how willfully ignorant libertarians and Conservatives can be to the plight of the poor that they have no little to no control over their situation that they would go as far as to disparage the poor.

This forum reflects much of Rand's campaign, completely ignorant to the plight of the working poor. Reading here you would think it was the 1600s and people can just lay claim to land to farm for themselves and are just "lazy assholes" for not doing so.
 
If you are broke, cannot afford college or training, living in a city or near one with an extremely high cost of living and the only available jobs barely pay or do not pay enough to keep you from ending up homeless how hell do you think people are going to vote?

It amazes me how willfully ignorant libertarians and Conservatives can be to the plight of the poor that they have no little to no control over their situation that they would go as far as to disparage the poor.

This forum reflects much of Rand's campaign, completely ignorant to the plight of the working poor. Reading here you would think it was the 1600s and people can just lay claim to land to farm for themselves and are just "lazy assholes" for not doing so.

Cities are breeding grounds for ardent socialists for this very reason.
 
It amazes me how willfully ignorant libertarians and Conservatives can be to the plight of the poor that they have no little to no control over their situation that they would go as far as to disparage the poor.
I used to be poor. I decided that it sucked and I should change it. So I did.

This idea that you have little to no control over your situation is, itself, a product of poor education. That idea does not survive deeper scrutiny.
 
Back
Top