A recent post from Dan Mitchell is worrisome for us older generations. (at least for me)
Is the Boomer generation just a bunch of dinosaurs out of touch with the realities of progress, or are the Millennials and Gen Zers being naive to the truth of the lessons of history?
"A striking generational divide has emerged. Older people still see socialism and communism as dangerous, authoritarian political systems, whereas younger people are more likely to see them as economic systems, and to care far less one way or another. For millions of potential voters, the Red Scare is no longer so scary. …The simple passage of time explains a lot. Millions of Millennials and Gen Zers were never exposed to the threats of the Soviet Union; they did not live through the fall of the Berlin Wall… A recent poll conducted by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation showed that 36 percent of Millennials have a favorable opinion of communism, as do a quarter of Gen Zers. Roughly half of the members of those two generations have a favorable view of socialism and thinks the government should act as an employer of last resort. One in five Millennials thinks the Communist Manifesto better “guarantees freedom and equality” than the Declaration of Independence and thinks society would be better off if the government abolished private property."
Source article: Young People Don’t Care About the U.S.S.R.
Yes, Dan Mitchell is a fossil and his opinion is obviously from a biased right wing media source. So, I can't take anything he says seriously. I am from the same "boomer generation" and I don't have any of the anxiety that seem to be part and parcel or your discussion.
The "Truths of History" depends on your point of view. The problem with conservatives is that they always consider their point of view or reference as the universal one, and believe me, it is not.
America has based much of its foreign policy on supporting authoritarian dictators, so who is zoomin who, here?
1.America makes a distinction for dictators, the authoritarian, that we embrace that will play ball with us and become a willing vassal for America's military, political and economic preferences and ambition. Otherwise known as "the free world". But depending on your perspective, perhaps not so free?
2. Then of course, the other sort of dictator, totalitarian, ruling over basically those nation states designated as "dangerous" socialist or communist societies because they will not submit to kissing America's hindquarters on the international stage, nor let its multinationals run amuck and exploit people and resources. Those were the guys who naturally wore the "black hats"...
I know of America's history of exploitation and Colonialism and I can't be asked to play along.
Your idea of good guys and white hats is always going to be completely irrelevant for me, hence my blue and your purple?
But, it is an interesting question that you pose, however.
Cred, your response is so far off-base from the intended point of my OP that I must wonder how I could do such a lousy job trying to make what I thought was a valid point to make.
I will try again in another post, but first here are a couple of points about your response:
Yes, Dan Mitchell is a Libertarian, so I can see why you would see him as a biased fossil, but you picked the wrong messenger to shoot. The author of the quoted article looks to be a young lady of the Millenial generation.
You can see some of her writings for The Atlantic here: Anne Lowery - staff writer - The Atlantic. Take a look and see if she too is a biased fossil of a source that you could never trust.
Also, you have often spoken of your views not being typical of your generation or race, so saying you disagree hardly seems to be a reason to invalidate the presented premise.
From my perspective, (which, from my failure to express the OP's point, could be as wrong as I think it is right), the rest of your comment had nothing to do with the intended question, so I will leave it alone.
Individuals are complex. Each is a product of past, how they experience it, where they are now and what their ambitions are. Younger people tend to be more romantic and idealistic. As we age, our values and philosophies change. As we experience more we evolve. I'm not saying everyone becomes conservative or liberal. It is truly an individualistic journey.
I understand you jaded views, especially considering your lack of historical understanding. The McCARTHY Hearings told the truth about the 'GREAT RED THREAT'. It was purge of intellectuals by those who corrupted the Democratic Convention to install Truman the Racist Commie hating Party puppet in power.
Is this administration ANY DIFFERENT than Stalin attacking Hungary for wanting it's freedom? WHY are America's SPECIAL UNDECLARED ENEMIES all of Saudi Arabia's competitors?
Wouldn't a REAL Capitalist Nation BUY it's resources instead of making up war crimes to 'justify' an invasion of that 'enemy'. After all, SAUDI ARABIA ARRANGED, paid for, recruited, trained and executed the 9/11attacks. Bush's own reports SAY SO.
WHY are no Republican Reports UNREDACTED? WHY do you allow their crimes to go unpunished?
WHY are anonymous donors EXEMPT from the law?
Especially if they come from foreign Countries.
Just remember, when 85% of ALL COMMERCE is owned by 5-7 CORPORATIONS in each of 11 market sectors... you have CORPORATE COMMUNISM.
Democracy ceases when NON-HUMANS can buy the HUMAN RIGHT of REPRESENTATION in Congress.
Try looking in the little lens of the telescope and aiming it in the mirror.
The REASON Millennials are 1/3 favorable to Communism is mostly how poll questions are phrased, but... they see how CAPITALIST Corporate Democrafraud has bilked more than 11 million homes from hard working people. Yet those same people who had 23 MILLIN JOBS LOST by Republicans this century, have paid almost 1/4 BILLION in greens fees to a guy playing his own personal course.
WAKE THE FRIG UP!!!!
First, I am a boomer, yet a middle one born 1954 and at the age of 65. Next, this forum post has inspired me to look about for answers so that I can answer the question. Thanks . . . that may influence my vote come November and I have learned. And, having read these forums over the years I must add I have not the prowess as most here do with their vast knowledge.
From my perspective explained above I think boomers are well aware of what progress is economically and socially especially since boomers are between 56 - 74. Half are still working if not more and social security kicks in at age 66 for most and many will be dependent on that since half will have less than $10k in savings and a vast many no retirement benefits. Things like cost of medication and health care are important. Yet, they have medicare to look forward to. Both are socialistic programs.
Regarding millennials being blind to history I think they may be more informed than what we think. Yet, they are not concerned with socialism's history because they are versed in democratic socialism prevalent in Europe. I think many of them know they are two different horses. Bernie emphasizes it.
I must admit after reading the second referenced article I wanted to know what the history of socialism is. And, sharing I always thought socialism and communism were the same thing. An interesting article I came across is But that wasn't real Socialism
Considering the sources this draws from and the current social paradigms, I'd say a bigger issue is playing into, or further, appropriating the generational arguments based in fear-mongering and performative cruelty to begin with.
Everyone who takes part in it looks silly, and thus it becomes a real issue. Gen-x, Gen-Z, Gen-Millenial... Who cares? Attack the substance and check your sources to make sure the statistics aren't biased to support an otherwise false narrative.
Then again, I'm an idiot. Burn it down, don't burn it down, I'll adapt accordingly as usual.
Kyler, history's lessons are there for all to see. That is not fear-mongering.
One can either accept or reject the examples history offers.
What "performative cruelty" Are you inferring there is no such thing as generational perception?
Making the generation of an individual, rather than the substance of the argument, a focal point is a tool of performative cruelty. You see why this is an issue as well, now, because even you found the context of what I said muddled.
I wasn't invalidating history, communism/socialism/fascism those are all sides of the same coin for me and I hold them all with equal disdain or wariness, but I was invalidating the necessity of making generation a focal point.
If you want to argue against communism then argue against it without disparaging other generations based on biased statistics. Making which generation you are born into a direct focus is nearly the same as making things about race, and we all know that is rarely a valid line of thought.
I guess to put it concisely: If you use generation, which is a valuable tool in the bag of performative cruelty, as a grounds for diminishing or invalidating the stance of someone else then expect your argument to get lost in translation and subsequently ignored.
"Preformative cruelty?" Like in saying you sound ridiculous?
Although I think I understand what you are trying to say, I still don't understand the meaning of "performative cruelty," but so be it, I don't think my understanding of it matters.
I think you misunderstood the point of the OP. Generational perspective was the entire point. It was the substance of the argument. There was no "individual" perspective addressed or inferred.
If the discussion is of changing generational perspectives—which was the OP's intention—I don't understand what it is you would want to invalidate.
Are you saying the argument is invalid because there are no generational changes of perspectives?
As a note, I Googled "Performative Cruelty."
"To put it a little more clearly here is an alternate definition:
Performative- In front of a public audience. Performative cruelty, the bold and public form of cruelty that’s meant to exclude and hurt people outside the circle."
If that was your intended meaning, then you misread the OP.
“Performative cruelty.” Being cruel for the sake of entertaining oneself or others."
Giving you the benefit of the doubt—you don't know me well enough for this to have been your meaning.
All other mentions of "performative cruelty" dealt with anti-Trump sentiments, and since there is nothing about Trump in the OP I am left wondering about your introduction of the term.
I see I would have to explain the current social climate and how connotations can be just as harmful as direct aggression, I withdraw from the conversation and will allow you to have your echo chamber.
NAME any genuine threat to America that was NOT INCURRED because of American Imperialism.
13 uninvestigated Embassy bombings under Bush because of the increased US military operations WITHOUT the consent of Congress. Of COURSE the Iranians stormed our embassy in 1979. We installed a Saddam Hussein level dictator in their country in 1953.
It's long past time for McCarthyites/Republicans/Trumpers
to step into the 21st Century.
HY can't you name a SINGLE EXAMPLE? I mean that doesn't include Republican or Democratic propaganda.
Is the Boomer generation just a bunch of dinosaurs out of touch with the realities of progress,
For the most part? There still are some good dinosaurs around.
or are the Millennials and Gen Zers being naive to the truth of the lessons of history?
But then again, Whose truth?
History's truths. I tried to differentiate between perceived generational truths and historical ones.
The LESSONS OF HISTORY is 75 years of McCarthyism at all levels of American life. BLACKLISTS are what Stalin did.
Henry Wallace wasn't a Communist. neither were more than HOW MANY MILLIONS killed by Meircan weapons in undeclared wars against our business partner's commercial competitors?
TELL ME HOW THAT IS Capitalism and NOT COMMUNISM. Isn't the 'war' on Iran, Venezuela and Iraq really about keeping the 9/11 Terrorists FUNDED?
What would happen if the Petrodollar was eliminated?
Would we still be able to justify the military support of the 9/11 Terrorists without that foreign entanglement?
I am voting for the first candidate that will release the unredacted Mueller Report, prosecute ALL the Russiagate/Ukrainegate ELECTION FRAUD accomplices (including Sitting Senators and Congressmen) and declare the NRA as a terrorist organization.
Apparently, judging from the responses, my OP was a lousy effort attempting to make a point by asking a question. So I will try to be more clear.
Basically, the question was; "Are generational perspectives of socialism shaped more by their exposure to lived historical life experiences or more by generational perceptions?"
It is true, by inference, that I thought the point of the quoted article made sense—Millenials and Gen Zers are more accepting of Socialism because they have no historical exposure to it, but determining the validity of that inference was the point of the question.
My reference to history and historical examples was to the point of the danger, (as I see it), of ignoring lessons learned from our past.
Thank you for the clarification, though the question seems redundant. If you lived to see the "fall of communism" and the rise in "socialism" via observing regimes such as those in Russia, then of course this helped to shape your views. If not, then of course you had no chance for experience to shape you.
But, many of the professors touting socialism are of the same generation that got to experience it. The current social climate muddles this perspective of the argument and thus partaking tends to only confuse others further.
Your point about professors seems valid, and a fair point to make, but it raises some questions about that validity. First, are they a large enough group to be representative of a generation, and second, how many of our modern professors are of the Boomer generation? (obviously it is my contention that Boomer generation professors were not as promoting of Socialistic ideals as more modern professors)
It is only my opinion, but I don't think they are representative, and I would also question if the majority of Millenial and Gen Zer's professors were older than 50. However, those opinions are just my perception, not proof that your point is unimportant to the question.
As for "the current social climate" muddling the argument, I think that is a point of the argument. Why do you think it muddles it?
No they are by no means large enough to consider as the representative and in being fair I wouldn't choose any niche group to represent the generations, yet they make themselves the most vocal and produce more "results" as far as producing the latter generations' mentalities. As for how many professors, if you want a subjective answer then nearly every professor I had during my short and painful stent in college; objectively I can't speak on it as I've never done the research.
As for who promoted the socialistic ideals the most, it came down to gender more than it did generation. More often I found the male professors promoting more "conservative" ideals while the women generally promoted more "radical" ideals. I'm sure, as everyone has, you've seen the news coming out of California's universities, and sometimes it is worse than what you read about. May be a State demographic problem.
My explanation of the current social climate muddling the argument would have to be the immediate desire to separate mentalities based on generation. This automatically divides people incorrectly, unless we are solely discussing the influence of current events on political opinion, which, let's face it, is a difficult train to keep on the tracks. Second, in struggling to keep that train to its tracks, you have those coming in who want to make it a war of words, "performative cruelty" if you will where every sentence is like a shot across no man's land at the generation that the person speaking does not like. Under such stress it is hard not to fire back, and generational division always leads to either hateful connotations and nuances or direct aggression across the imaginary divide.
Once again, though, we can chalk much of those hateful and derisive attitudes up to something else, which would be the safety of hiding behind the internet in most cases as no one regularly berates people in real life without serious consequences.
At the end of the day, I think it is more important to make something besides generation the focal point of determining views on socialism for the sake of constructive conversation. Perhaps evolution of policy as it concerns letting anyone who would seek to take advantage of it, get away with being a lazy socialist bum, or conversely how policy is evolving to force people into accepting socialism. Generational views are important, but something to keep in the background because of others' inability to avoid ad hominem. Then again, I may just be projecting evidence where there is none for my own comfort, but I don't think so because I could produce more physical evidence to the contrary.
Consider that in the far past (100 years) children went to work at 16 and often had a family to support as well. Even the boomers seldom made it to 20 before being on their own. If we wanted a car, we bought one. If we wanted a stereo, we bought one. We worked for what we purchased.
Now, children live off their parents until well into their 20's or 30's. They often haven't held a job in their life - parents bought anything they wanted. They have been taught that someone else is responsible for giving them what they want - in that regard they never graduated to adulthood.
And they are transferring that teaching to their life as adults; someone else must supply their needs and wants...modern socialism in a nutshell. Why would they ever fear it or find anything wrong with it?
You are speaking "dinosaur" bud. I understood every word. ;-)
Totally agree with Wilderness here(faints from shock)………..To digress, Boomers knew about the precepts of socialism from their parents & from history. Boomers saw that socialism wasn't a good thing at all e.g. National Socialism which was totalitarian in scope. They viewed socialism as a milder version of communism which was deemed evil. The Millennial generation have a more bucolic view of socialism, seeing it as the antidote to what they perceive as a corrupt capitalistic system. Please note that not all Millennials view socialism as good while capitalism bad. It is the less successful Millennials who welcome socialism. The more successful Millennials embrace capitalism & view socialism as the refuge for losers.
I have read the entire thread, and I think you have summed up the situation pretty dam well. "They have been taught that someone else is responsible for giving them what they want". So, why not stick with a good thing. Call it socialism, call it woke. Sounds good to many of the younger generations. However, not all, many still have an innate mindset to succeed and thrive. Thank God!
To be honest GA, I don't think that many people in either generation have an accurate knowledge of what socialism is and how much is already a part of this society and at what point do "we cross the line", and who decides where that point is.
When I think of Socialism, I think of Western Europe, I don't think negative.
I don't associate tyrannical regimes with socialism as it is an economic system not a political one. The socialistic part of culture is as good as the capitalist based one. A tyrant is a tyrant regardless of economic system of the nation involved. What lessons from the past that I want to observe are to avoid tyrants and dictators, period.
So, I think that the inference you present is incorrect.
I don't associate tyrannical regimes with socialism as it is an economic system not a political one. The socialistic part of culture is as good as the capitalist based one. A tyrant is a tyrant regardless of economic system of the nation involved. What lessons from the past that I want to observe are to avoid tyrants and dictators, period.
So, I think that the inference you present is incorrect.
Ha! What else would I expect from a Millenial? [b];-)[/i]
But . . . isn't what system one associates Socialism with also firmly associated with the political systems that have tried to implement it—tyrants and dictators?
When speaking of history's lessons can the two associations be unlinked?
I actually agree with GA here, it would seem that, colloquially speaking, more people associate politics with socialism than they associate economics with it. As it concerns majority perception, this is very valid. At least in America.
Ha! What else would I expect from a Millenial?
And for that, I love u. LOL
To answer your question... Yes and no, that's a simplistic conclusion. There are more than one factor. There were/are plenty non-socialist tyrants and dictators.
Oh God. These kids. 20 minutes and cant even finish a thought. LOL Not a minute of peace and quiet. To be continue...
Now we are getting somewhere Cred. So you don't think my inference is correct. Well, since my inference is based on my perception, or agreement with those of others, I can't say you are wrong.
I still agree with the point made in the OP, but that is just what I think—not a truth to be defended.
Since I think progress is necessary for any society to succeed, I am in agreement with you that a good system is one of a capitalism/socialism, (non-capitalized), mix. But I am sure we would disagree on the proportions of that mix.
I know it amounts to picking on Sanders, but that is more because I think his promoted degree of "progress" (his platform planks), illustrates what I am saying is too much socialism.
Firstly, before getting onto the question you raise:-
With reference to the post from Dan Mitchell and the Source Article:
International Liberty is a blog page run by Daniel J. Mitchell. Daniel J. Mitchell is an American libertarian; which amongst other things advocates a limited role for government in domestic and foreign affairs; in other words a Laissez-faire style of Government.
The Source Article ‘The Atlantic’ (an American Publication) uses the term USSR in its title. The Opinion Poll, which that article refers to, does not make any reference to the USSR: Albeit the Opinion Poll does make references to Communism and Socialism. However, the opinion poll is specific to Americans only; and as discussed at length in another recent forum, there is a lot of confusion amongst many Americans of the distinctive difference between Socialism and Communism.
If the same questions were asked in an opinion poll in the UK, there would be radical differences in the results; specifically, Socialism is popular in the UK, but Communism is feared.
Credence2 (in his post on this forum) made the correct distinction when he said “When I think of Socialism, I think of Western Europe…..”
Now to your question: - “Is the Boomer generation just a bunch of dinosaurs out of touch with the realities of progress, or are the Millennials and Gen Zers being naive to the truth of the lessons of history?”
I can only answer from a European perspective. And for simplicity I’ll just generalise on the statistics, and trends etc. Before I do, I would like to add that I am a Baby Boomer, and that the UK has had Socialism as part of its social and political culture since the Labour (Socialist) Government’s landslide Victory in 1945 (75 years).
In answer to your question: In the UK; No the Boomer generation is not just a bunch of dinosaurs out of touch with realities of progress, and neither are the Millennials and Gen Zers naïve to the truth of the lessons of history.
To expand on this:
It may be slightly different in the UK than the USA, because we already have Socialism in the UK e.g. the NHS, so the elderly don’t fear it. When the elderly vote Conservative, they are for example thinking of their ‘Triple Lock’ on their State Pension, and are less worried about whether the legal minimum wage is going to be raised or whether the low paid are going to get an increase in their working tax credits e.g. the Triple lock on State Pension is where it is raised by the higher of either the rate of inflation, percentage rise in average earnings or 2.5% (whichever is the higher of the three).
As regards the younger Generation, in the UK we are brought up in a Socialist State, and we have Communism on our doorstep (Russia), so everyone from a young age knows what Socialism and Communism is, and the distinction between the two.
When the younger generation are casting their votes, they are more focused on what will have the biggest in pact on their lives; which as well as the above mentioned would also include whether University fees will be abolished or the railways renationalised again etc. (Socialist Policies).
In every generation since 1945 the elderly has tended to be more ‘Conservative’ and the young tend to lean more towards Liberalism or Socialism. To put it into crude (general figures):-
• About 75% of those over the age of 65 tend to me more inclined to vote Conservative, and
• About 75% of those under the age of 25 tend to vote for Liberal Democrats or Labour.
And for the voting population as a whole, about a third tend to be hard core Conservatives, about a third tend to be hard core Socialists; and about the third of the voting population tend to be ‘floating voters’
In practice in the UK it means that the Conservative Party Policies tend to favour the elderly (the grey vote) because that is their core voters, and they need those votes to stand any chance of winning or holding onto power; whereas, the Labour Party Policies tend to favour the young because that is their core voters, and they don’t want to lose them to the Liberal Democrats.
It’s because of the above, that both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats favour lowering the voting age to 16 in England; as the SNP (Socialist Government) has already done in Scotland and as the Socialist Welsh Government has done for 2021. Needless to say the Conservatives are not in favour of this! Albeit the forefront of this campaign is the Youth Parliament (school children aged 11 to 17) who since 2009 have sat in the House of Commons once a year to debate such issues.
UK Youth Parliament 2019 in the House of Commons - morning session https://youtu.be/x_FAIWu5_7M
Damn Nathanville, you are wearing me out. But I suppose that isn't really a bad thing. ;-)
As a preface to addressing your comment, (similar to your effort), Mitchell is a Libertarian, but not a true Laissez-faire Capitalist. He frequently notes areas where our capitalist system needs government regulation of the 'Free' Market.
Also, I think the source—The Atlantic article, nor it's "poll" or title construction are relevant to the discussion. I didn't even follow the poll, I simply thought the idea the article presented had merit.
And lastly, perhaps I made an unwarranted assumption. To my mind, Millenials and Gen Zers were American generation descriptors so it was obvious I was talking about American generational perspectives. I didn't stop to think they were universal descriptors. That was my error.
So, moving on . . .
You did present a thought that I think is relevant to the OP's point, and has some merit. That was that many European young folks do have lived experience with 'real-time' Socialist governments. My only defense for not considering that is that I was speaking of young folks in the U.S.
All of the other points in your comment, (the U.K. ones), are directly related to cultural differences we have agreed on in the past. I can easily see that the Sanders-type ideas that so many here in the U.S. worry about would readily be considered by European countries' young folks.
Thanks for that clarity GA.
Yep, as you say, the Sanders-type ideas, that so many in the USA worry about, would readily be considered by European countries’ young folks: And not just the young, but voters from all age groups; he would do particular well in Bristol (where I live).
In Bristol there are 4 Parliamentary Seats (MPs); all four seats are ‘Safe’ Labour seats e.g. in all 4 seats Labour are likely to win comfortably in a General Election (as shown in the results below for the recent 2019 General Election).
I live in Bristol East, but it’s interesting to note that in Bristol West the biggest contender to Labour isn’t the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats, but the Green Party.
In fact Greta Thunberg’s visit to Bristol last week was a BIG hit with Bristolians:-
Greta Thunberg Climate Rally and March in Bristol (28th Feb 2020): https://youtu.be/JIDlTPTu3M4
Bristol West (votes in 2019 General Election):-
• Labour = 47,028
• Green = 18,809
• Conservative = 8,822
Bristol East (votes in 2019 General Election):-
• Labour = 27,717
• Conservative = 16,923
• Liberal Democrats = 3,527
• Green = 2,106
Bristol South (votes in 2019 General Election):-
• Labour = 27,895
• Conservative = 18,036
• Liberal Democrats = 4,227
• Green = 2,713
Bristol North West (votes in 2019 General Election):-
• Labour = 27,330
• Conservatives = 21,638
• Liberal Democrats = 4,940
• Green = 1,977
With reference to the above mentioned Election results in my comments above, of Bristol in the recent UK General Election; the demography relevance of that in relation to the topic matter of this forum:-
• Bristol West (Middle Class Area), expensive houses, but also where the vast bulk of university students rent their accommodation (live) e.g. it’s where Bristol University is situated.
• Bristol East & Bristol South (Working Class Areas) is where the vast bulk of the lower classes and the working class live.
• Bristol North West (Upper Class Area) is where most of the wealthy Bristolians (who don’t live in Bristol West) live e.g. the posh houses and cars, house prices more than double house prices in Bristol East and Bristol South.
One thing I’ve noticed from re-reading the posts here is the assumption by some Americans that in today’s Society the young have a greater leaning towards Socialism, than the previous generation because these days they have it too easy; sponging off others e.g. the State, their parents etc.
As I said before, I can only speak as a Brit; but as a Brit, the youngsters of my generation (the Baby Boomer’s) had it easier than the youngsters today e.g. in Britain, back in the 1970’s it was easy to find work, and if you couldn’t afford to buy your own house it was relatively easy to get a Council House (Social Housing), and not only was University free, but the government paid you a quite generous grant to go to university.
I left school and home at 16, got a job and rented until my fiancée and I bought our own home when I was 22. Like me, my wife didn’t bother going to university when we were young; but after our son moved up to Secondary School at the age of 11, in deciding to go back to work my wife decided to get a University Degree first (BA with Hon. In Business Administration), and she was able to do so because it was just before the Conservatives abolished free University Education.
So although we are of the Baby Boomers generation, it’s because the Conservatives always nibble away at Socialism around the edges when they are in power that we fully support Labour as the Socialist Party.
Perhaps unlike America: In Britain, our Social Status is less important on whether we Brits support Socialism or not e.g. there are plenty of poor people who vote Conservative (a Capitalist Government), and plenty of wealthy people who support Socialist Policies.
Two prime examples are two famous British Entrepreneurs; Sir Richard Branson and Lord Alan Sugar (Both from the Baby Boomer Generation):-
To put their personal wealth into perspective:-
• Lord Alan Sugar’s Wealth = $1.5 billion
• Donald Trump’s Estimated Wealth = $3.1 billion
• Sir Richard Branson’s wealth = $5.1 billion
I don’t know Sir Richard Branson’s politics, but they are certainly left leaning e.g. he endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the run-up for the 2016 USA Presidential Election.
However, the video below highlighting his work ethics in business will make many right-wing Americans cringe.
Sir Richard Branson (a successful businessman in the UK), his views on ‘Flexible Working: https://youtu.be/V67nDvfNQV0
As regards Lord Alan Sugar (another successful British businessman):
From 1997 until 2015, Lord Alan Sugar was a member of the Labour Party, and also one of its largest donors.
He was knighted by the Queen and became Sir Alan Sugar in 2000; and subsequently became a Baron (Lord) in 2009 when he became a life peer (as a Labour Peer) in the House of Lords.
Alan Sugar Slams Donald Trump https://youtu.be/rBy18DRzBu4
I'm glad you hung around Kyler, there is a lot of substance in your comment. None of which I have a lot of argument with.
However, I want to go back to the point of the quoted blurb that was what prompted my OP: Is the lack of lived historical perspective of real-world socialism a primary reason for the mentioned generations' apparent more-accepting views of socialism? And if so, does that also mean they are making the mistake of ignoring history's lessons of it?
I noted "primary" because I think there can be many reasons for their views. For instance; I completely agree with Wilderness' 'dinosaur' comment. And I also agree that the evolution of our, (U.S.), society and its governing policies is probably a factor. But . . .
My issue is that I think it is dumb to ignore history and that the radical, (yes, that's an opinion), socialist direction of ideas like Sanders' are doing just that. Another for instance—not to pick on Bernies as much as to illustrate the point; he, in the past, has also promoted a national rent-control law to help solve our affordable housing problem.
Progress is a necessary thing, extreme Progressivism has never been a good thing.
No, I think the direction of most education and conversation is the biggest issue. History is extremely important, and often misrepresented for the sake of shoehorning in personal or political agendas. I'm busy right now, but I want to give you a concise answer to bring full-circle my views on the topic without so much of my ever-present emotional trash I blend in for flavor.
Insurance companies that value "group policies" are a big worry for me as I view it as the first step to pushing socialism to the forefront of American society. These companies are popping up left and right, and bigger companies are following suit, where they have policies for "underprivileged" individuals to pool their money and share medical costs. Though I have not come across a system that would mesh well with American ideas of economics, I don't think sharing the cost among individuals as an alternative to correcting medical costs is the answer. Rather than attacking the lack of regulation we have on pharmaceutical companies, allowing them to dictate price here in America, they are putting the cost back on those struggling to pay to begin with and presenting it as a "solution" to their inability to afford said costs. This is bleeding into other marketing solutions, such as within the gaming industry where if you buy and continue to pay for digitally stored games you do not in fact own the product you bought and can be denied access at any time for any reason as it is only a "shared file," all the while everyone else is also keeping these companies funded and they present themselves as "needy" while having a net worth in the billions and bringing in more funding than any fiscal year previously and lowering their own operating costs drastically....
Hopefully in my rush to respond I was clear enough and didn't spiral out on too much of a tangent. But this is where I feel the education and focus on socialism should be. Not generational perspectives. If we allow subjective topics, which are great for scholarly endeavors, to dictate colloquial discussion then we are going to keep seeing the conversation muddled and constructive progress for everyone become stagnant, all the while we argue these policies are being implemented in silence and under the guise of being in our best interests.
It's crazy how deep socialism already goes in America, and I feel conversations like these only further veil the shadowy doings of those with the most sway. Though, a pipe dream solution would be more transparency from the government as to the actual direction they are taking us without leaving it to otherwise unqualified individuals to speak on publicly like news anchors.
Well, I am at a loss for a response. Perhaps if I just note that it is the degree of socialist program acceptance and not a black or white acceptance that is the conditioning factor of my thoughts on the matter.
Well don't invalidate your own stances, your generational perspectives and your values concerning the matter are very important. I just don't think most individuals can handle such a conversation as it is widely subjective and holds little sway outside of scholarly endeavors. I guess I could say loosely, it is more of a symptom than it is a mechanism, and thus would be best presented to those who would seek to discuss it objectively.
I think it is safe to say we are both educated, well-rounded men and that is why we ended this on a positive note. If we shared a beer we'd have some great conversation concerning generational perspective and all it entails, but to close out with my final stance, generational perspective is best left to the classroom or conversation out of the public eye where others may feel attacked and thus turn the conversation into a verbal knife fight.
by Tim Mitchell 5 months ago
It has been well stated that our current leaders including the president are old codgers (Silent Generation that are not silent) that have no business in governing today. The question is who are electing them? Or, is it a matter of who runs against them? Five generations will be able to vote in...
by Elena 6 years ago
Can an innocent generation suffer for the sins of a previous generation?I wonder if this explains – why bad things happen to good people.
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
Many people are asking if millennials could be America's dumbest generation. This has been highlighted by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her incoherent ramblings and how they make sense to millennials. It is sad. A sergeant once yelled at a guy next to me and said: “Are you that...
by Asahda Shavaja Poet of the New Age 8 years ago
How is the new generation of youth different from the past generations?There are many negatives and positives concerning today's' 21st century youth. With all the latest advances from science to technology as well as other drastic social changes.How is the new generation of youth different from the...
by Castlepaloma 7 years ago
There is Harper smear campaign (Harper being like a Canadian GW Bush) Say Justin Trudeau (liberal) wants to legalize Marijuana and do nothing about ISIS. That is Great news in my books I might Vote for first time in my life for something that makes good sense.America was the Greatest and with...
by Wesman Todd Shaw 10 years ago
Is B.H. Obama a fascist???Yes or no, please give details, thank you.
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|