Why do young people and especially millenials seem so attracted to communism/socialism? It seems like everyone has his edgy teenager phase where he thinks he has the world figured out.
Sheltered leftists that had everything handed to them, college kids who have not experienced the real world yet, or some punk who has never worked in his entire life. Why are all these retards attracted to communism like a moth to a flame? Is it because it appeals to their FEELINGS more than logic or facts?
It "sounds" good but they stop at the theory part. It's the evil faceless corporate white man swimming in money like Scrooge McDuck that's keeping us "The People(tm)" down.
It's like they are completely oblivious to the horrors of socialism and how it has killed millions of people. Every socialist country ends up in failure or total collapse, people starving and eating cats/pidgeons to survive.
How do they fail such basic historic education?
Whoever gets there first wins. Most get exposed to it before anything else. They want to be a part of something "different" than the mundane reality of their lives. Appealing to feelings works especially well at an age where your hormones are going wild and you feel you have to prove yourself to the world. If you want to piss them off even further like their parents already do, tell them you have them all figured out and know better. The reason you see so many teens roleplaying as young intellectuals is because they want to be better than you.
They don't fail at knowing history. It's the interpretation they refuse.
millenial americans were taught in school that communism is good, and only fails because it is hard to implement properly. sharing and equality of outcome are taught as more important than earning and equal opportunity. competition is diacouraged. success is somewhat discouraged. if an individual fails, teachers blame his community. if an individual succeeds, dont be proud because it was all thanks to the community. Hard work is not rewarded, compliance with authority is
>job market sucks
<gee why won't young people support capitalism
It requires just the right amount of intellectualism, for one. It's easy to get into if you just share the right sentiment, but you can spend years and years learning ever new variations if you want. Marxism alone is so internally inconsistent and riddled with errors that you could spend a year learning but never "really" understanding it. There's nothing better for pseudo-intellectuals than a system that allows for practically limitless navel-gazing.
Communism also doesn't pose any demands on your character. All that's required is that you hate the right people and that you solidarize with "your" people. A monkey could do that if you trained it. It doesn't demand that you abstain from anything, like aggression or sexual degeneracy. It even absolves you from the responsibility to understand what the other side is saying, because they're just the bourgeoisie/shitlords/kikes anyway. It appeals to irresponsible idiots (read: teenagers) by telling them that they don't have to change at all, the world does.
At the top of my hat, the only commie I can think of who wasn't neurotic or otherwise pathetic was Lassalle. Marx, Engels, Fourier, Saint-Simon, Comte, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, Mussolini, Hitler, Gaddafi, Rousseau, de Sade… really, just make your pick. Almost all of them got screws lose. Compare them to de Tocqueville, Spooner, Acton, Mises, Rothbard, Hayek or Ron Paul to see that leftism in particular is the fault, not strong opinions per se.
Actually studies have shown that Gen Z are overwhelmingly conservative.
God bless the PragerU channel.
I wouldn't trust any study of a young person's convictions.
wasn't there a quote by someone who said something along the lines of:
"If you're not a liberal by 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by 30, you have no brain"
Because, on paper, socialism is about fairness, and that sounds great to kids who don't know any better. Everyone gets what they deserve and nobody is oppressed. What a magic wonderland! Why are you so scared of socialism?
>How do they fail such basic historic education?
The long march through the institutions. They started infesting the public sector fifty years ago with the goal of ideological warfare and they succeeded.
>God bless the PragerU channel.
Said no Gen Z kid ever. You think it's limp-dick "muh TRUE conservatism" hacks like Prager that are converting them? It's the Internet culture they were raised in clashing with the leftist-infected educational environment they're forced through. Other than being anti-PC, I really don't see them being conservative in practice. While it's a miracle they didn't turn out more leftist than millenials, I can't see their support for Trump and his initiatives anything else other than the product of his charisma. I think this effect will wear off in 8 years, and we'll be in for a fairly rude awakening. (Good thing anyone left of Trump is completely incapable of meme warfare.)
>Making money is bad
>If you're rich you're automatically bad
What is it with commies thinking wealthy people are evil?
Waaaahhh give me freee stuff
Why do you guys like stealing things from other people?
Commies don't like working.
Or being a responsible independent adult.
im 20, which I believe makes me a millennial (born 1997)
as a child and early teen, before I was exposed to the internet I was very liberal, everything of politics had painted conservatives as the guys making more rules and I grew up with 8 years of bush and making fun of him, it wasnt until obama was running and the tea party was a thing that I even realized liberals were for anything but less rules.
soon after that a good teacher that taught me about bias thoroughly followed by internet culture to see MANY different biased accounts instead of one helped me throw out all the knowledge I got from textbooks about certain subjects and some other blatant disinformation about politics (did a history teacher ever tell you that at some point republicans and democrats got reversed? thats utter bullshit invented so they dont have to explain that parties are complicated)
for a while after that I was a neetsoc because of statistics and pure contrarianism, but I could never fully commit because even if I didnt know its name liberty has always been branded onto my heart
about a year ago I found you guys, I usually dont use a flag but consider myself an ancap/voluntarist/agorist
in short, biased media and biased textbooks, not everyone learns about bias and delves into its meaning with zeal and lust for truth, not everyone has someone to show them how.
>It's like they are completely oblivious to the horrors of socialism and how it has killed millions of people.
>it was not real socialism
stealing is hard work
That's why the state does it for them
so why are they venerating physical labour?
I'm a millennial. I think they are just impatient to understand the root cause of why all the corruption were happening around them. They just blame whoever they think drove them into inequality. Maybe it has something to do with the way they were taught from liberal institution and their parents.
As for me, I really did my case study of government system in the past until present day and the events that were correlated to what the government were doing, how did the extortion effect the society to its downfall. I think the only reason why I'm not an Ancap is because I haven't seen the system worked in the past which brought civilization to life.
Last time I check, they're not like libertarian paradise at all. A lot of things in there are state funded, and home schooling are illegal.
>By David French
I have no face and I must cringe.
>sharing and equality of outcome are taught as more important than earning and equal opportunity. competition is diacouraged. success is somewhat discouraged.
Communism has the advantage of being radical and 'edgy' without offending the wrong people.
But you come off as neither, just sad people who can't take care of themselves independently.
Its not about what it actually does, its about what it seems like it does.
Note, If you're arguing >>63773 is being wrong you need to work on your reading comprehension
So someone else can do it for them.
Let me preface this with saying that I'm not looking for a fight. I'm one of the 4 people on /leftypol/ that wants to work with the libertarian right to achieve some common goals. I don't hate you guys, I'm an ex right-wing libertarian and understand exactly where you're coming from and the primary thing that changed my mind was an understanding that capital still equals power but that's a conversation for another day.
Wittgenstein's belief was that there are very few if any actual philosophical problems and it's mostly the failure of language and from what I've noticed that seems to ring true when we discuss our respective ideologies.
Let me address your issues:
1. The claim about sheltered leftists that had everything handed to them is something a lot of leftists say about right libertarians. Every socialist revolution has been the working class against whatever oppressive entity it needed to overthrow. During the industrial revolution socialism was most popular with the common laborers who were opposed tot he new wage system being implemented.
2. I think you'd agree that corporations use the state as a means of securing and maintaining economic advantages over others so we have a common enemy.
3. The history of socialist countries is no more violent than the history of capitalist countries. You can definitely point to individual socialist countries that were more violent than capitalist countries and vice versa but this isn't a reasonable argument. You wouldn't defend Charles Manson by claiming that John Wayne Gacy killed more people. A typical response is that "capitalism is private property rights etc", this is fair but I can reply with "socialism is the worker control over means of production etc", if we are to be honest neither system advocates for mass murder and it's pointless to say " a society that people claim is socialist/capitalist committed (insert atrocity here)". History is not as simple as a win or loss for any ideology.
The radical left and the libertarian right have a ton of revolutionary potential. You guys want 1776 and we want 1936 (Spanish anarchist revolution), I think we can work together and accomplish a lot. We could have a revolution, overthrow the state, split the resources and agree to separate but still maintain relations through trade and what not. Keep in mind when I say split the resources I mean the ones either controlled directly by the state or through corporations which obtained their property illegitimately, we don't want to take over Olive Garden and Home Depot.
how about this, anybody who wants to be commiecan take whatever they have and pledge it and themselves to it voluntarily? as long as your not seizing my memes of production I have no problem with you and your buddies sharing your own and will even stick up for your right to do it
>1. The claim about sheltered leftists that had everything handed to them is something a lot of leftists say about right libertarians.
I think that's true of every movement that has an intellectual basis. It's just particularly jarring in the case of socialism because you pretend to be grassroots and tough. Libertarians don't usually do that.
>Every socialist revolution has been the working class against whatever oppressive entity it needed to overthrow.
Not by a long stretch. Lenin, lower nobility; Trotsky, son of a landowner; Stalin, son of a business owner. Che Guevara, son of business owners, and medical student; Castro, son of a landowner and philanthropist. Mao, son of a newly enriched peasant family. Ho Chi Minh, son of a doctorand, and himself rich enough to travel to Paris and Moscow during the 20s. Kropotkin and Bakunin were both high-ranking aristocrats. Marcos, upper middle class. Marx and Engels, don't even get me started. Lassalle is even worse. The only socialists I could find who seem to have had lived in the lower classes were Makhno and perhaps Kim Il-Sung. For every peasant or worker in a socialist movement, you will probably find at least one worker or peasant on the opposing side and three members of the bourgeoisie among the socialist.
>During the industrial revolution socialism was most popular with the common laborers who were opposed tot he new wage system being implemented.
And yet, they were neither the ideologues nor were they predominant later on in the leadership. From what I heard, the workers were even the last group to support the Soviets. The soldiers and peasants were on the side of the Soviets eventually, but not the workers.
> You guys want 1776
No we don't. All violent revolutions are doomed to ultimate failure.
Libertarian/Conservative revolutions are always good whereas Socialist/Commie revolutions are always violent, savage and brutal.
The French and Russian revolutions share a lot in common, compared to the American revolution which was an actual revolution against tyranny and FOR freedom, whereas the Frogs/Russkies crushed freedom and instilled authoritarianism.
> The history of socialist countries is no more violent than the history of capitalist countries
>2. I think you'd agree that corporations use the state as a means of securing and maintaining economic advantages over others so we have a common enemy.
Are our methods even compatible? Because if we want to abolish subsidies but you want to tax the corporations into oblivion, then we can have a common enemy all we want, we won't be abe to work together.
Not worth making a thread over so just posting this question here:
Why are ancap flags yellow/black? What do those colors mean?
Black for anarcy and Yellow for capitalism
What does the color yellow have to do with capitalism?
I understand commies being signified with red because they bathe in the blood of millions of people, but I don't understand the capitalist yellow.
It should be gold, but well, gold ain't no real color so they took yellow instead. I mean, you can make it gold, but half the time it will be yellow and the other half orange so… why bother?
I think I can answer this:
These children grew up lived the 'pretty princess' life, sheltered in daddy's money bubble, and now for the first time in their lives they are facing the fact that they are worthless, instead of working hard to become worthy, instead of trying to become doctors/engineers, instead of trying to obtain marketable skills and celebrate the market, they go the other way around. They entrench themselves in the "I am important" mindset that work with daddy, and the "evil rich" that are rich and not paying attention to them are "unfair". They "stole" and "exploited" these unemployable, unproductive, rainbow hair social studies studies studies majors. Free market is not paying attention to them, not because they are worthless scum with no skill or service to provide, but because the free market is "unfair".
tl;dr its easier to blame the free market than obtain marketable skills
Low effort and free shit. Millennials have no self esteem.
its edgy while being accepted
Indoctrination by universities and laziness are factors too.
None of them start small, instead of starting small and buliding up they want to start big but not do jobs that are bad and unpopular.
They want the cool high paying easy jobs, but they wont get them with low experience.
Conservatives also tend to look better and cleaner whereas Communist SJWs are always fat, ugly or pseudo intellectual with glasses and dyed hair.
Liberal girls are ugly and conservative girls are pretty.
It's a self esteem issue.
>Why do young people and especially millenials seem so attracted to communism/socialism
Because they're smart.
imo only extremist left wing girls are ugly and fat
For some reason, yes. It helps that conservative girls don't have sixteen nose piercings and don't insist on never shaving.
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>Because they're smart.
It's good to know that this is the new idea of intelligence. Entitlement, retardation and oblivious ignorance to the world around them. Oh and, everything's a social construct of course, including science.
why should the banks who were bailed out with our tax dollars keep their wealth?
Tax? Seriously dude? Please stop conflating socialism with big government liberalism.
they're not leftists they're morons
I wonder why the American Revolution worked while other Revolutions were more bloodier and deteriorated. The Revolutions in South America deteriorated and the 1st French Revolution devolved into the terror. How come the American one didn't have that problem?
That's completely accurate you need a history lesson.
I don't believe that's true at all. Many violent revolutions have failed but there's been numerous ones which have succeeded.
I guess it depends on what determines a success or failure which is mostly up to interpretation.
Because it wasn't so much a revolution as it was an independence war. They didn't want to turn around the exising order, unllike the French. They wanted independence, sure, but the French wanted to reform or abolish religion, exterminate the ancien régime, create a new era of progressivism and enlightenment etc. etc. You can see that the Americans were far more modest.
Just as importantly, it wasn't a people's revolution. The Founding Fathers were largely members of the landed aristocracy, highly educated people who didn't worship the mob. The thought of throwing a noblewomen out into the street to be cut to death by a bunch of civilians would never have occurred to them. For various reasons, the masses have a peculiar cruelty when you unleash them, and the Founding Fathers didn't.
Our "educational system" makes them weak and dependent and financially illiterate. They come out of school not seeing how they can succeed as an entrepreneur. I think corporatists are partially to blame for this as well because it thwarts competition and generates legions of dupes to loan money to.
That last part is incredibly insightful. I think that for the purposes of conducting a revolution, or as you put it an independence war (which is essentially what I'd want), we would have to make DAMN sure we didn't raise an unnecessary amount of controversy among the population. Arbitrarily killing people is morally wrong but it's also impractical. I'd venture to say that the assassinations of corrupt politicians would be at the least tolerable and at best celebrated by the masses but going out and randomly slaughtering factory owners (which some of my comrades condone) would not only cause a lack of support but could very well in turn cause normal citizens to take up arms and crush the rebellion. You can't win a war without the will of the people.
Sun Tzu understood this very well and the support of those you are fighting for is a necessary component of attaining a military victory. During The Troubles in Northern Ireland they really fucked up not adhering to this principle and although they achieved a lot of their goals the civilian casualties sustained by IRA attacks did a lot more to harm the cause than advance Irish independence. The IRA's goals were never to kill non combatants but through severely gross negligence it did happen quite a bit and it ended up leading to the creation of several Loyalist paramilitary groups who proved to be just as big of a problem for Irish Repulicanism as the RUC, PSNI, British Government etc. A better approach would have been to try and establish an autonomous community within the Republic of Ireland for the largely protestant citizenry.
>3. The history of socialist countries is no more violent than the history of [b]mercantalist [/b] countries.
Now I can agree.
What the Americans did wasn't as different as they like to present it as. Even though there were a few smaller, lesser known revolts before the revolution that ended up in massacres, it was not "the people" rising up collectively. That is never the case. Every revolution involves a very loud and violent minority forcing its way by violently suppressing ingroup opposition and forcing everyone they can to participate on their side. The founding fathers were mostly wealthy merchants that could afford the resources to start an armed revolt. There were cities and groups that either sided with the British or wanted to remain neutral and they were having none of that.
This notion that there ever was, is or will be "the people" has to be done away with for anything of lasting impact to be achieved. There is no collective will, only individual liberty.
Besides, there were some among the founding fathers that clearly wanted to recreate British rule in America.
thats not REAL leftism, duh
>They're attracted to communism/socialism because they're smart
>Actually look at those dumbasses
>Oh come on they're not REALLY leftists
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>Tfw you witness the day an ansoc and an ancap agree
>Tfw the ansoc trashes muh democratic uprising meme
>Tfw top post from a lefty
1. Thats what they teach them in schools. Instead of learning the lessons of communism and why it never works, they pretend that all the failures were not really true communism. Kids arent smart enough to realize that 'true communism' is just a delusion.
2. It resonates with a more childish view of the world and humanity in general. That we can all just hold hands and sing Kumbaya and everything will turn out OK.
3. Kids tend to not have jobs. So they dont understand the value of money or hard work.
4. All the TV celebrities and pop stars that kids look up to are hardcore socialists.
5. Good news: Generation Z, who are younger than millenials are actually more right wing than any genertion since the 70s.
>1. Thats what they teach them in schools. Instead of learning the lessons of communism and why it never works, they pretend that all the failures were not really true communism. Kids arent smart enough to realize that 'true communism' is just a delusion.
Can confirm for Germany. They told us that the USSR was terribad, of course, but did we talk about the Katyn Massacre? The Gulag-system? The post-revolutionary massacres? The famines? Nope. The Nazis, they were pushed into the spotlight, but besides one off-topic remark from a teacher, we never learned anything about their economic policies or their roots in Marxism. But hey, what do you expect from "historians" who unironically push the Dark Ages-meme, and the unwashed-knights-meme?
Why do people hate capitalism??? I just don't get it :((
What is the Dell theory of conflict prevention?
Ironically markets are one of the key reasons we don't have as many wars anymore.
Ironically wars are one of the key reasons the global economy didn't collapse yet.
In all seriousness, what the hell do you do with a poster like >>64039 ? You can't point out the decrease in violence over the past century (they'll just say it was because of more government), you can't bring out the evidence for the capitalist peace theory (they'll cherrypick your data and talk about South Ossetia), you can't bring the evidence against "WWII ended muh GD" and start talking about Higgs' research (they'll just confuse it with saying you're defending Japan or some shit). In my experience, it's like a rubber biscuit: everything you throw just bounces off. It just fucking depresses me, like there's no amount of evidence or reason in the entire goddam world out there. It's probably the number one reason I don't really post that much anymore. I see standard canards, imagine possibly replying with the standard replies…but it's always going to end the same way. At some point I just feel so completely apathetic at the enterprise. It's like being the computer in War Games. You run through every scenario in your head, can't imagine any change of opinion happening on either side, and just concluding that it's best not to even play.
And then I come back here tomorrow, and see the same goddam posts, and get even more nihilistic about all of this.
Have you ever thought that maybe, just maybe, it's you are who is wrong?
Going by real life results, we'll never be as wrong as you.
I've got a feeling that people just got dumber since the last two years. Dumber, and more closeminded. And not at all interested in abstract ideas and principles.
Still, don't give up hope. Remember how some of us started out.
This tbh: >>64104
>According to muh real life results
>People are starting to realize that our pure ideology has nothing to do with reality… That must mean they are getting dumber!
It's weird that I'm seen as "sheltered" when it was graduating from school and getting an actual job in the real world that stripped me of my libertarian convictions. Those with the biggest gripe against capitalism are those with the most firsthand experience with it.
The proponents of libertarianism are almost universally insulated from capitalism in practice: whether by being students or for having right-wing welfare jobs in think tanks writing white papers nobody will read.
By far the most asinine post I have read this morning. Top kek, I need more coffee.
>Why do young people and especially millenials seem so attracted to communism/socialism?
>reality xD gotcha
Wtf I hate freedom now
>I used to be an ancap like you until…
No one who ever started a story in this way could then explain to me why the action-axiom is false or how the calculation-problem can be solved. Almost like their "libertarian convictions" were never strong enough to convince them to look this shit up.
Of course I do. To quote Patton, "Every goddam day."
It'd be pretty damn hard to fuck up worse than previous examples of socialism.
But why do citizens of countries that either were or currently are socialist so against it?
The exact opposite happened.
>I got a job, got butthurt at reality and became a gommie.
Quite the retarded post.
Who the leftyspergs are by their own words. Enjoy the kek.
>thread for whining about your life is representative of /leftypol/
It's not /r9k/, you know
>even unemployed leftypols have gfs because they are sociable
Because communism takes advantage of the lack of prosperity and happiness of not just young people, but people of decolonized countries, and pretty much all the other downtrodden and uses their misery to point to a group that's the source of all their problems, (In this case, people more wealthy than them.) when it's government that's the reason for their lack of prosperity and happiness.
It's funny because under communism, the politicians and bureaucrats have the most wealth, while everyone else is poor; But because communists are indoctrinated to view rich people who aren't government as the evil bourgeois, and government as a supernatural savior that can do no wrong, they end up always siding with the true cause of their problems.
You're believing it way too much. I expect at least half of it to be lies.
EVERYTHING INCLUDES A NUMBER TOO BIG FOR YOUR PEA BRAIN TO COMPREHEND.
is it real life in burgerland?
Gonna quote my fave movie for a response to OP:
"We're the middle children of the history man, no purpose or place, we have no Great war, no Great depression, our great war is a spiritual war, our great depression is our lives, we've been all raised by television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars, but we won't and we're slowly learning that fact. and we're very very pissed off."
Already noted it's likely some of them don't dare present themselves as losers even anonymously, though that's still pretty bad.
> It seems like everyone has his edgy teenager phase where he thinks he has the world figured out.
The lack of self-esteem as you become more knowledgeable on something is not a myth. Stupid people don't know what it's like to think that you're an idiot because you forgot the name of some obscure 18th century ecomomist.
>millenials are more likely to be commies
they're also more likely to be Libertarian. Being a Democrat is not much better than being a commie.
Would you rather they be like the boomers or something?
So thanks to a century of government bullshit, millenials are becoming more extreme in their views, going either full authoritarian (whether for the gibs like leftists or for race like the WNs) or wanting to get rid of the government altogether.
so it is a good thing in your opinion to be married at such young age?