Millennials acceptance of Socialism & Communism- Ignorance of History's Dark Side

[TGHusker]

This article claims based on polls that millennials are open to socialism and even communism because they do not fully understand

the dark history of communism & to a lessor extent socialism. It can be rightly argued that our system is a mix of capitalism and socialism

due to the heavy involvement of our govt in economic policy, regulations, and social welfare programs. Outside of the communism in a few

spots like N. Korea, Communistic govts like China, Vietnam have incorporated some elements of capitalism into their system.

 

I do believe it is important for our citizens, old and young, to understand the dark days of communism so that history is not allowed to repeat itself.

It is also true that communism isn't the only despotic system over the last 100 years to birth dictators, tyrants, and their associated atrocities .

 

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/poll-millennials-desperately-need-to-bone-up-on-the-history-of-communism-2016-10-17

 

one quote:

There’s a lack of historical perspective, according to the foundation, that the survey showed among a big chunk of the younger generation. For instance, a third of millennials say they believe more people were killed under George W. Bush than Joseph Stalin.

 

A couple of short 5 minute videos on the topic.

 

https://www.prageru.com/courses/history/americas-socialist-origins

 

https://www.prageru.com/courses/economics/why-capitalism-works

[NUance]

a third of millennials say they believe more people were killed under George W. Bush than Joseph Stalin.

 

I'm no fan of Dubya, but it's pretty sad that anyone could think that. George W. Bush the tyrant killer that Joseph Stalin was? That's sad, pathetic, and yet a little bit funny.

[Landlord]

I don't think it's that we don't understand the dark history of communism/socialism, but that we don't necessarily attach the dark evil elements inherently to the systems of government. Fact is, the world is going to continue to become more socialistic, in individual countries and collectively. Technological advancement will continue to take away more jobs, and also more products and goods from which to make money, while also equalizing distribution of resources by making it free/painless for people to have access to things like internet, tools, transportation, etc.

[cm husker]

Regardless of the dark figures of history who have led or taken control of socialist movements is the fundamental economic truth that those systems are actually counterproductive to their good hearted proponents' stated goal.

 

I'm fine with exploring the notion of a minimum income to redistribute wealth. Despite the colloquial misunderstanding, that is not "socialism."

 

Controlling (and thereby dictating) the means of production and distribution is, and everytime government has tried to do that, it's ended disastrously for everyone but special interests.

 

And every time we see an economy liberalize, we see meaningful (and often massive) improvements in the lives of more people.

[Fru]

$150k in student loan debt makes some forms of socialism probably not look quite so bad.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Millennials don't have a good grasp of context or history, but you could expand the category to Americans in general.

 

Just yesterday I learned that most Americans can't name our three branches of government, and only a third can name a single one. If you want to talk world history prior to yesterday, you probably drop into the single digits.

 

I'm more concerned that our partisan two-party system and our increasingly lazy media have made this a zero-sum all-or-nothing game: pro-business vs. pro-government.

 

What has actually made America great is an often contentious but generally cooperative relationship between free-market capitalists who generate wealth and income, and a federal government that looks out for quality-of-life issues that don't always answer to a profit motive.

[Fru]

Millennials don't have a good grasp of context or history, but you could expand the category to Americans in general.

 

Just yesterday I learned that most Americans can't name our three branches of government, and only a third can name a single one. If you want to talk world history prior to yesterday, you probably drop into the single digits.

 

+10000000

[knapplc]

Gen Xers, at the Millennials' current age, didn't have a good grasp of context or history. Nor did Gen Y, Baby Boomers, or any other generation when they were in their mid-20s. That's a human development issue, not a "Millennials have a problem" issue.

 

30 years from now we're going to be seeing Millennials bitching about their kids like people bitch about Millennials today. The same way our parents bitched about us when we were that age.

[cm husker]

$150k in student loan debt makes some forms of socialism probably not look quite so bad.

And ironically, it's "socialism" in the form subsidized loans that was the main culprit in driving up costs of higher ed.

 

The sad thing is that those subsidized loans are just another method of transferring wealth from the young and less wealthy to the old and more wealthy - whether that be to bankers in the form of fees and guaranteed interest payment set artificially high by congress, academics who run wild with the ability to charge students full freight or pensioners who are benefiting from SLAB income.

 

The student loan problem is directly borne from a market distorted by socialist motives.

[84HuskerLaw]

Gen Xers, at the Millennials' current age, didn't have a good grasp of context or history. Nor did Gen Y, Baby Boomers, or any other generation when they were in their mid-20s. That's a human development issue, not a "Millennials have a problem" issue.

 

30 years from now we're going to be seeing Millennials bitching about their kids like people bitch about Millennials today. The same way our parents bitched about us when we were that age.

No, until the past 30 years or so, most Americans did have a decent grasp of history and the evils of socialism and communism (basically two sides of the same story). Anytime the government takes control of the economy and starts preventing the natural forces of free markets (such as free movement of money and the supplies of goods and services), the very virtues and benefits of freedom generally and individual liberty are limited. Discouraging the productivity and rewards for the work and ingenuity of the individuals in society reduce the supply thereof - destroying wealth and the capacity to generate more of it - making everyone poorer. Poverty is the natural and inevitable result of socialism and communism as you deprive people of the own self-worth and the motivation to be efficient, thoughtful and generous with their minds and bodies. Enslavement to the state is the true effect of socialism. While many societies in world history have accomplished remarkable things (the Greeks, Romans, Incas, Egyptians, etc etc), slavery of the masses was a fundamental underpinning of those societies although not often discussed by the historians that portray such civilizations as 'great' or magnificent.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

$150k in student loan debt makes some forms of socialism probably not look quite so bad.

And ironically, it's "socialism" in the form subsidized loans that was the main culprit in driving up costs of higher ed.

 

The sad thing is that those subsidized loans are just another method of transferring wealth from the young and less wealthy to the old and more wealthy - whether that be to bankers in the form of fees and guaranteed interest payment set artificially high by congress, academics who run wild with the ability to charge students full freight or pensioners who are benefiting from SLAB income.

 

The student loan problem is directly borne from a market distorted by socialist motives.

 

 

Sure. There was a socialist motive. A pretty good one, although it certainly wasn't free and the discounted rate should never have been a burden on taxpayers.

 

As with the cheap housing loans that became part of the bundled derivative debacle, good intentions were derailed by un-thinking consumers and for-profit opportunists. Lots of blame to go around.

 

Weirdly enough, if you look at it in pragmatic macro-economic terms, Bernie Sanders pure socialism approach to higher education probably makes more sense then where we're at now.

 

Simpler changes can be effective, but it will require telling people they can no longer profit from an untenable system, as was the problem with the unchecked debt bundling.

[cm husker]

 

 

$150k in student loan debt makes some forms of socialism probably not look quite so bad.

And ironically, it's "socialism" in the form subsidized loans that was the main culprit in driving up costs of higher ed.

 

The sad thing is that those subsidized loans are just another method of transferring wealth from the young and less wealthy to the old and more wealthy - whether that be to bankers in the form of fees and guaranteed interest payment set artificially high by congress, academics who run wild with the ability to charge students full freight or pensioners who are benefiting from SLAB income.

 

The student loan problem is directly borne from a market distorted by socialist motives.

 

 

Sure. There was a socialist motive. A pretty good one, although it certainly wasn't free and the discounted rate should never have been a burden on taxpayers.

 

As with the cheap housing loans that became part of the bundled derivative debacle, good intentions were derailed by un-thinking consumers and for-profit opportunists. Lots of blame to go around.

 

Weirdly enough, if you look at it in pragmatic macro-economic terms, Bernie Sanders pure socialism approach to higher education probably makes more sense then where we're at now.

 

Simpler changes can be effective, but it will require telling people they can no longer profit from an untenable system, as was the problem with the unchecked debt bundling.

 

 

1. What discounted rate? It was the opposite of a discounted rate. And if the burden doesn't fall on the collective taxpayers or the individual consumer, who does it fall on?

 

2. "Good intentions" are almost ALWAYS derailed by human incentives - we don't have to get into the debates about mens rea. When I'm a poor person wanting a home, I'd be crazy not to take the "free money" and when I'm a "risk free" seller of "free money," I'd be stupid to not take that money. Hundreds of years of economic history clearly demonstrate that we as a society cannot rely on altruism and intellect among consumers and sellers. What we can rely on is a system that couples profit motive (an bad word, but an amazing engine for social improvement) to the associated risk. Socialism does just the opposite - decoupling risk from profit "for the greater good."

 

3. I disagree and can point out that other large countries who have dabbled in "free education" have extremely restrictive education (see India for a prime example). I've never once seen Bernie or his supporters explain, in real terms, how you go about controlling costs or quality through a "single payer" or direct lending education system. It's a prime example of what wins at a rally, but falls absolutely on its face in reality.

 

4. You and I are so far disconnected on how and why people do what they do in an economy that I don't think we have a hope of finding common ground. I just have to ask, what is the magic wand that can be waived to make these system operate more efficiently than a profit motive and competition can? The problem is, too many socialist influenced systems today have eliminated profit motive and therefore by nature drive up price (people are no longer incented to drive price down in order to capture more market (i.e., increase revenue) and increase profit (i.e., drive down demand on resources and thereby leave resources on the table for others to use in separate endeavors).

 

I encourage you to read this: https://fee.org/articles/profit-not-just-a-motive/

 

 

 

The overarching problem with blaming a “[profit] motive” is that it ignores the distinction between intentions and results. That is, it ignores the possibility of unintended consequences, both beneficial and harmful. Since Adam Smith, economists have understood that the self-interest of producers (of which the profit motive is just one example) can lead to social benefits. As Smith famously put it, it is not the “benevolence” of the baker, butcher, and brewer that leads them to provide us with our dinner but their “self-love.” Smith’s insight, which was a core idea of the broader Scottish Enlightenment of which he was a part, puts the focus on the consequences of human action, not their motivation.

 

I'm happy to read counter arguments from Bernie's camp.

[TGHusker]

Millennials don't have a good grasp of context or history, but you could expand the category to Americans in general.

 

Just yesterday I learned that most Americans can't name our three branches of government, and only a third can name a single one. If you want to talk world history prior to yesterday, you probably drop into the single digits.

 

I'm more concerned that our partisan two-party system and our increasingly lazy media have made this a zero-sum all-or-nothing game: pro-business vs. pro-government.

 

What has actually made America great is an often contentious but generally cooperative relationship between free-market capitalists who generate wealth and income, and a federal government that looks out for quality-of-life issues that don't always answer to a profit motive.

Amen! Good post. It always amazes me when I see those 'random on the street' interviews of people who don't know Washington from the state, the city or the person.

[cm husker]

Guy C,

 

This is another good article by the same professor. I like the title, too.

 

I think it clearly demonstrates that "free market" folks are advocates for policies that are far more more beneficial to "lower class and middle class" people than socialist policies could ever hope for:

 

There is No Such Thing as Trickle-Down Economics

[Lil' Red]

I think that it is also true that socialism is too stigmatized of a term for some. If you are able to attach the socialism label to a piece of legislation, some people will vote against it out of fear without even truly considering it. History has shown that governments based on pure capitalism or pure socialism/communism don't work and the challenge is striking the right balance between the two. I think too often political discussions needlessly devolve into a capitalism vs socialism debate when ideas and candidates should be evaluated individually, regardless of where they fall on the spectrum.