Why millennials are drawn to socialism

[Mr.wizard]

I've thought for a while, we have a standard of living bubble.  That our expectations for stuff everybody should have has become a bit unrealistic.  One thing from growing up in the 80's is there just wasn't as much stuff to own.  We had a small tv, a plug in phone, 3 channels, and a VCR.   Now, many people have a tablet, smart phone per person, a data plan, dvr, dvd player, 250 channels, Netflix, Amazon account, large flat screen tv, 2 computers, and high speed internet, and a video game system.

My parents didn't have a dishwasher.  Some didn't have Dryers.  Some didn't have microwaves.  The big yearly vacation was to the lake.  The car was a station wagon they'd had forever.  Eating at a restaurant was both rare, and we when we did it, we went to pizza hut.

If you were willing to live like people back in the late 70's to early 80's, I bet things would be much more affordable.  We sort of get a glimpse of that with Captain Awesome and how he's living.

And the socialism, and leftism in general is just common sense.  Millenials don't have a bunch of money, but they want a bunch of stuff.  But then some of them get some stuff, and have some kids, and they want to keep their stuff, and give their kids advantages, so they become republicans or libertarians.

Well you have lots of problems there, first the basics like a house, a car, a phone,and food cost a lot more than they did in the 70's and 80's and wages haven't exactly kept up with expenses. Second your suggesting that people spend less and live simpler, that is not recipe for making things more affordable overall. If on a large scale people just cut back their spending to the bare minimum it would be devastating economically, which means job losses, poorer people, and ultimately higher costs. The key to a successful capitalist system is having a consumer base with disposable income, right now we don't which is why they invented credit cards. Right now we rely on the private sector to pay adequate wages to fuel the economy, they have not done that and they don't look like they plan on doing that, so it's not surprising that Millenials are leaning more towards socialism, we really haven't given them much of choice.

[Anomalocaris]

If capitalism doesn't die in this century it will be a miracle.

Capitalism, through its superior ability to allocate capital efficiently to maximize the total productivity, will give societies that exploit this capability a major advantage, and this is likely remain a dominant economic institution amongst the most influential powers in the world until such times as when that capability is equaled or surpassed by other system. That time is not visible as of yet even on the furthest hoirizon.

---

I'm guessing you're referring to stocks?  Just another unnecessary thing needing to go.

As with evolution, things don’t exist and perpetuate because they are necessary. They exist and perpetuate because they confer subtle or obvious advantages to those who have them such that those who advocate for them can leverage those advantages directly or indirectly to overpower those who advocates against them.

---

I wrote a novel about a society where there was no monetary system.  The people worked because nothing would get done if they didn't, they worked for the benefit of the community, providing for all, ensuring that everyone had what they needed.  No monetary or bartering gain was necessary.  

That is how our society could be, how it should be.

Except such a society will likely be overwhelmed by another that provides more visceral inventive facilitated by money, so it would die out.

[Silver]

Except such a society will likely be overwhelmed by another that provides more visceral inventive facilitated by money, so it would die out.

Nonsense.

[Anomalocaris]

Could be that millennial's tend to feel more entitled to things? One could also argue my generation did not see the horrors of what socialism has done to people. I don't consider myself a fan of socialism nor capitalism. Socialism to me means more government, bigger government. I do not like the idea of the government being so involved in my life. And I do not think that is paranoia I just prefer to stand by my Libertarian values. In my opinion the government should serve the basic needs of the people. Protection, security and safety.

I prefer the idea of ownership and personal fiscal responsibility. It should NOT be the governments responsibility to cut you a check for whatever it is such as college, healthcare and welfare. Call me cruel but I think welfare needs to be cut or at least more regulated. It should be used more as temporary form of assistance because it is well abused. I do understand things such as EMS, police and the fire department are forms of socialism. But again, those fall under basic needs the government should provide. Other than that, I do not think the government should be much larger than that. But that is just me as a Libertarian.

I have always been taught to work for everything and pay for something when you know you have the money. Not when you think you will have the money. Take my college for instance, I was lucky enough I began saving when I was a small child. Then, that money was put into stocks and it grew. And now I am graduating college debt free. I consider myself rather lucky. But if I did not have the money for college, I would not dare take out a loan. I'd start at a local community college (which I actually did) and see where that takes me. Community College in my county at least, is very affordable. I think if people learned to stop taking loans out for petty things such as that brand new iphone, that new car etc people would have much more money to spend.

I am also against taxing corporations heavily. Sure, should they be taxed? Absolutely! But just like everyone else. Corporations create jobs and are the reason the majority of us in the private sector do have jobs in the first place.

I think socialism can work in these smaller nations, but we have yet to see is successful in a nation with a large population.

These are just my opinions though. Does not mean I am right, but just how I feel when it comes to the topic on socialism.

Could it be that our evolutionary history as hunter gatherer bands conferred upon us a powerful instinctive sense of group fairness and group social justice that manifest most strongly in young adults just coming to age and able to express this innate sense of how society should be, before they are beaten down by the vast amount of added complexity in post-agricultural revolution societies that largely negated many of the personal benefits that expression of instinctive group fairness and group social justice had previously rewarded our hunter gatherer ancesters?

It has been said as far back as the 19th century that those who do not become socialists in their youth are heartless, while those who remain socialists into their middle age are brainless.

---

Except such a society will likely be overwhelmed by another that provides more visceral inventive facilitated by money, so it would die out.

Nonsense.

It is nonsense made sense by a track record.

[Silver]

It is nonsense made sense by a track record.

Not in my imaginary world.

[Anomalocaris]

Deleted diplicate

[I_am_not_mafia]

I've thought for a while, we have a standard of living bubble.  That our expectations for stuff everybody should have has become a bit unrealistic.  One thing from growing up in the 80's is there just wasn't as much stuff to own.  We had a small tv, a plug in phone, 3 channels, and a VCR.   Now, many people have a tablet, smart phone per person, a data plan, dvr, dvd player, 250 channels, Netflix, Amazon account, large flat screen tv, 2 computers, and high speed internet, and a video game system.

My parents didn't have a dishwasher.  Some didn't have Dryers.  Some didn't have microwaves.  The big yearly vacation was to the lake.  The car was a station wagon they'd had forever.  Eating at a restaurant was both rare, and we when we did it, we went to pizza hut.

If you were willing to live like people back in the late 70's to early 80's, I bet things would be much more affordable.  We sort of get a glimpse of that with Captain Awesome and how he's living.

Millennials always get the whole gadget thing waved in their face. But these are just trinkets compared to the things which really matter such as owning your own house, having a free education, not having to work for free for years on end just to get the experience necessary to get a job and knowing that you will be able to get a pension. The baby boomers on the other hand got all those, at least in the UK, and still get to buy all the shiny gadgets.

[Edwardo Piet]

I think another possibility is perhaps that Karl Marx's communism was never actually tried out in practice: Tyrants and laypeople got hold of an oversimplified and cartoonized version of it. As far as I'm aware Karl Marx's version has never actually been tried. Maybe it's not realistic, but if compromising what he suggested for something more 'realistic' leads to unworkable and immoral crap Marx himself would never agree with... then it's not really fair to say it's been tried.

I read a book called "A History of Europe" that said that the Soviet Union's Communism turned into a sort of State Capitalism. It's just I don't know what else to call it but Communism.

That's just it. It's kind of a misnomer.

Let's just say that Karl Marx's philosophy wasn't put into practice and yet he often gets the blame for it. What we call "communism" today isn't the acting out of Marx's communist manifesto.

---

The baby boomers on the other hand got all those, at least in the UK, and still get to buy all the shiny gadgets.

[Anomalocaris]

[

Let's just say that Karl Marx's philosophy wasn't put into practice and yet he often gets the blame for it. What we call "communism" today isn't the acting out of Marx's communist manifesto.

Even though the Soviet system never implemented the idealized communist system envisioned by Marx, what Karl marx’s envisioned clearly possesses in greater degree all the faults which made the Soviet system uncompetitive in the long run.   Marx even realized others might anticipate that these problems might afflict his system but like many self-styled visionaries he felt it sufficient to assert by fiat, without basis, evidence, or justification that they would in fact not be problems in his ideal system.

So an analogy to the contention that Karl Marx's philosophy wasn't put into practice and he shouldn’t be blame for it might be when some prophet claimed the cure to any sickness is to bash the patient’s skull in.  But one one actually had the tools to do this so his followers settled for pummeling the patient’s faces instead.   When the cure by pummeling the patient’s face is found to not confer the stated benefit and further seem to actually worsen the patient’s health, his followers might assert the prophet shouldn’t be blamed because no one has actually put the prophet to the test by bashing a patient’s skull in.

[Edwardo Piet]

So an analogy to the contention that Karl Marx's philosophy wasn't put into practice and he shouldn’t be blame for it might be when some prophet claimed the cure to any sickness is to bash the patient’s skull in.  But one one actually had the tools to do this so his followers settled for pummeling the patient’s faces instead.  

Terrible analogy.

Communism in practice led to corruption, tyrannical rule and despotism but Karl Marx's communism was supposed to be about equality for all which is the very opposite of those things.

Again, I'm not saying that communism as envisioned by Marx is at all realistic but I AM saying that what happened in Soviet Russia is not Marx's philosophy.

---

Even though the Soviet system never implemented the idealized communist system envisioned by Marx[...]

As soon as you start with this admission you're accepted my point.