NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do teenagers/young adults in particular seem to gravitate so much to extreme socialism/Marxism/Marxism-Leninism.

I've often wondered why people in my general age group seem to attach so much to these ideas. I'm not going to rant about the ideologies - suffice to say I prefer capitalism and equity over communism and equality.

I just want to hear people's opinions over why these ideologies seem to be particularly attractive to said demographic.

*shrug*

Extreme, radical, big changes, these ideas bring about an obvious change and not little things, perhaps.

A lot of teenagers either have no real understanding of these ideologies, or they're shaping their identity, and identify with these things just because they're "cool."

For some it has to do with rebellion (a byproduct of which is also that the number of Anarcho-Capitalists and Libertarians is higher in younger population strata - that'll be your rebel with a twist then).

For others it's just something completely different from the world they know and have come to find boring and horrible.

And again others might actually feel for the undefined "oppressed" masses. Not that they'd then go as far as actually giving up their own little pleasures for the poor. ;)

What, exactly, is "said demographic"?
Where I live, everyone was a communist in middle school, and later became cynical and either anarchist, libertarian (me), or apolitical.
Anyway, younger teens like extreme left ideologies because they're idealists.

Why do teenagers/young adults in particular seem to gravitate so much to extreme socialism/Marxism/Marxism-Leninism.

I've often wondered why people in my general age group seem to attach so much to these ideas. I'm not going to rant about the ideologies - suffice to say I prefer capitalism and equity over communism and equality.

I just want to hear people's opinions over why these ideologies seem to be particularly attractive to said demographic.
Read up on Marxism/Communism/Socialism/Etc. You'll see why.

Because they don't want to do any work.

A lot of teenagers either have no real understanding of these ideologies, or they're shaping their identity, and identify with these things just because they're "cool."
Yes, well, I'm not "A lot of teenagers". I understand the idealogy of Communism, and understand what it's fighting for. I am a Communist because it will allow social equality, free health care, and welfare only for those who absolutely need it.

Idealism.

And I've seen a lot of the complete opposite too. Objectivisml/libertarianism and all that jazz.

Because they don't want to do any work.
Nope, that's definitely not it. I know a good number of self-proclaimed commies who work long hours and go to uni as well.

As opposed to a few self-proclaimed libertarians who are doing quite well living off their parents' work.

Because they see no equality in their families or schools or colleges or universities, Perhaps?

Yes, well, I'm not "A lot of teenagers". I understand the idealogy of Communism, and understand what it's fighting for. I am a Communist because it will allow social equality, free health care, and welfare only for those who absolutely need it.
Lofty ideals to be sure, but in no communist country have they ever worked. And those people believed in it as strongly as you do, so what makes you thing it will ever work?

Besides, isn't free speech, freedom of expression, etc, of any importance to you?

I'll kick off the discussion then...
I am a Communist because it will allow social equality
Pity that we don't have biological equality either...how about we make everyone biologically equal? Isn't it unfair that some people are blind, or have no legs?

free health care
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1942544,00.html
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1665252,00.html

and welfare only for those who absolutely need it.
Yep. Suddenly "need", not ability becomes the measurement of a human being's worth. And the more needs you have you are unable to satisfy yourself, the better you become.

A lot of teenagers either have no real understanding of these ideologies, or they're shaping their identity, and identify with these things just because they're "cool."

Bullshit, kids aren't stupid, and no one thinks communism is cool.

And again others might actually feel for the undefined "oppressed" masses. Not that they'd then go as far as actually giving up their own little pleasures for the poor. ;)

Once again, bullshit. The oppressed aren't undefined, they are people living in third-world hellholes, or under tyrannical governments. Furthermore, I have always been willing to give up what I have, if I thought it could help others.

Lofty ideals to be sure, but in no communist country have they ever worked. And those people believed in it as strongly as you do, so what makes you thing it will ever work?

Besides, isn't free speech, freedom of expression, etc, of any importance to you?
Stalin didn't believe in it as strongly as I do. If anything, Russia was national-socialist. If there is equality for all, no poverty, no war, no violence, I don't care about freedom of speech or expression.

Read up on Marxism/Communism/Socialism/Etc. You'll see why.

I do believe I picked up a few fragments of the theories from my Politics major :rolleyes:

What, exactly, is "said demographic"?

Teens/young adults (probably moreso teens).

I think has people get older they lose their idealism, they become more interested in practical, pragmatic ideas.

With that said, the older I have gotten the more idealized my thinking has become.

Pity that we don't have biological equality either...how about we make everyone biologically equal? Isn't it unfair that some people are blind, or have no legs?

Yep. Suddenly "need", not ability becomes the measurement of a human being's worth. And the more needs you have you are unable to satisfy yourself, the better you become.
Welfare is for the people who cannot work without a doubt due to their biological inequality. It's not for lazy people. Also, if you can work but are unable to do equal work due to physical or mental inequalities, you will be granted welfare to help that.

Bullshit, kids aren't stupid, and no one thinks communism is cool.
.
I never said they were stupid. I just said they didn't know what it was really like, and to many people it is cool to just be different, doesn't matter what kind of different. Communism is a way to be different.

Stalin didn't believe in it as strongly as I do. If anything, Russia was national-socialist. If there is equality for all, no poverty, no war, no violence, I don't care about freedom of speech or expression.
The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state, period.
And freedom of speech and expression is one of the most important and powerful rights ever given.

I never said they were stupid. I just said they didn't know what it was really like, and to many people it is cool to just be different, doesn't matter what kind of different. Communism is a way to be different.
Since when has it been cool to be different? People who don't fall within a clique become victims, plain and simple.

Yes, well, I'm not "A lot of teenagers". I understand the idealogy of Communism, and understand what it's fighting for. I am a Communist because it will allow social equality, free health care, and welfare only for those who absolutely need it.

I don't believe "welfare only for those who absolutely need it" is a marxist tenet.

Stalin didn't believe in it as strongly as I do. If anything, Russia was national-socialist. If there is equality for all, no poverty, no war, no violence, I don't care about freedom of speech or expression.
What about Mao, Pol Pot?

communism doesn't come about peacefully, it never has. Then, the revolutionaries feel the need to suppress dissenting opinion because they're unsecure about their system. This results in tyranny and oppression.

Personal freedom may not be important to you, but it is to me and a whole lot of other people.

I gravitate to social democratic beliefs.

The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state, period.
And freedom of speech and expression is one of the most important and powerful rights ever given.
Would you gladly give up those rights if you knew it meant no poverty, no war, no violence, no racism, no sexism, health care for all, with there truely being no class discrepencies, with everyone being socially equal? I would.

Since when has it been cool to be different? People who don't fall within a clique become victims, plain and simple.
Have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years? It's always been cool to be different. That's why you have all these cultures like punk, goth, grunge, skater, gangsta, etc. The kids need to belong to something, but not to something that's too popular.

Why do teenagers/young adults in particular seem to gravitate so much to extreme socialism/Marxism/Marxism-Leninism.

I've often wondered why people in my general age group seem to attach so much to these ideas. I'm not going to rant about the ideologies - suffice to say I prefer capitalism and equity over communism and equality.

I just want to hear people's opinions over why these ideologies seem to be particularly attractive to said demographic.
Because they are in rebellion against what they see as the "wage-slavery" of adult life. Soon to be adults themselves, they secretly wish for a return to the womb, where they were safe and protected from the world and from having to make hard decisions about their place in it. Marxism seems to provide a way to accomplish this, with the State taking the place of Mother.

Would you gladly give up those rights if you knew it meant no poverty, no war, no violence, no racism, no sexism, health care for all, with there truely being no class discrepencies, with everyone being socially equal? I would.

I wouldn't. For me, that would be like being trapped in a bubble in the perfect society, to be unable to express an opinion or belief.

Would you gladly give up those rights if you knew it meant no poverty, no war, no violence, no racism, no sexism, health care for all, with there truely being no class discrepencies, with everyone being socially equal? I would.
So would I. But that will never happen because power corrupts, and if we can't criticize and constrain the politicians, we will get war, poverty, no healthcare, etc.

I don't believe "welfare only for those who absolutely need it" is a marxist tenet.
Marx wrote the idealogies of Communism about a hundred years ago. You have to realize that the idealogies have to change over time. Welfare for those who need it has become part part of Communism. Why should we discriminate against those with seriously debilitating defects which prevents them from working?

The answer is simply because most "young people" have been indoctrinated in their public/government schools. These Houses of the Devil tend to encourage Marxism.

Because they are in rebellion against what they see as the "wage-slavery" of adult life. Soon to be adults themselves, they secretly wish for a return to the womb, where they were safe and protected from the world and from having to make hard decisions about their place in it. Marxism seems to provide a way to accomplish this, with the State taking the place of Mother.
*chuckles* how true, how true...

The answer is simply because most "young people" have been indoctrinated in their public/government schools. These Houses of the Devil tend to encourage Marxism.
I don't know what school you've been to, but in no school that I went to is this remotely true. And I've been to 5 different ones.

Would you gladly give up those rights if you knew it meant no poverty, no war, no violence, no racism, no sexism, health care for all, with there truely being no class discrepencies, with everyone being socially equal? I would.
Having any of that is impossible. And I still wouldn't give up my right to speak out.
Furthermore, I don't want a society with no violence. I love to fight.
Have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years? It's always been cool to be different. That's why you have all these cultures like punk, goth, grunge, skater, gangsta, etc. The kids need to belong to something, but not to something that's too popular.
You just contradicted yourself. If you belong to a "subculture", you are not different. All of the "subcultures" are largely the same, with a few cosmetic differences. People who are different become victimized.

The answer is simply because most "young people" have been indoctrinated in their public/government schools. These Houses of the Devil tend to encourage Marxism.
They don't encourage it. They do, however, teach us that the current government makes people who simply aren't lucky enough to be able to have what is essentially slave labor to work for their very own Fortune 500 company. And yet the schools glorify it.

You just contradicted yourself. If you belong to a "subculture", you are not different. All of the "subcultures" are largely the same, with a few cosmetic differences. People who are different become victimized.
Their differences may be cosmetic, but they are differences, and that's all that matters. Only a few people like nerds, or loners become victimized.

Their differences may be cosmetic, but they are differences, and that's all that matters. Only a few people like nerds, or loners become victimized.
So... you have no real argument. A cosmetic difference means absolutely nothing.

Nope, that's definitely not it. I know a good number of self-proclaimed commies who work long hours and go to uni as well.

I'm not saying that laziness is the motivation of all commies. It is, however, a powerful incentive for most teenaged commies. They see that they will be entitled to a decent standard of living no matter how hard they work, and they find that very appetizing. They probably also adore the idea of waking up a 4:00 to wait in line for a loaf of bread.

I'm not saying that laziness is the motivation of all commies. It is, however, a powerful incentive for most teenaged commies. They see that they will be entitled to a decent standard of living no matter how hard they work, and they find that very appetizing. They probably also adore the idea of waking up a 4:00 to wait in line for a loaf of bread.
Incorrect.
If you are capable of working, but don't, the government doesn't take care of you.

So... you have no real argument. A cosmetic difference means absolutely nothing.
Completely contrary. It means everything. YOU just don't realize it. Nothing I can do for you there, sorry.

If you are capable of working, but don't, the government doesn't take care of you.

In most teenage interpretations of a communist government, there is social welfare that applies equally to those who work and those who do not, wealth is distributed equally, etc.

Completely contrary. It means everything. YOU just don't realize it. Nothing I can do for you there, sorry.
Okay, illuminate me: how is being a punk, metalhead, "gangsta", etc. being different?

In most teenage interpretations of a communist government, there is social welfare that applies equally to those who work and those who do not, wealth is distributed equally, etc.
Not where I live. Then again, we were more realistic than many teenagers.

Okay, illuminate me: how is being a punk, metalhead, "gangsta", etc. being different?
Different music, different clothing, different slang, different behavior. Is that enough differents?

Not where I live. Then again, we were more realistic than many teenagers.

Around here, people are just communist because it's the "cool" thing to do. I'd say that on any given day, at least one out of every four people is wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt, yet only one in forty can say what he actually did. It's kind of sad, really. Of course, they also believe in communism as ultimate monetary and social equality, regardless of how much you work.

Because they don't want to do any work.

So true. That's pretty much all communism is good for - living off of others.

Why do teenagers/young adults in particular seem to gravitate so much to extreme socialism/Marxism/Marxism-Leninism.


Do they? The data I've seen shows that teenagers/young adults tend to be apathetic about politics. In fact, considering the generally low voter turnout rates (edit: in the United States), the apolitical trend seems to also be common among the general population (edit: of the United States).

What data/sources can you present that show a tendency for teenagers/young adult gravitate toward "extreme" (what exactly does that mean?) socialism/Marxism/etc? One must show if this tendency even exists before we can begin to spectulate as to any possible origin or cause.

(Edit: Although, having quickly scanned some responses to this thread, I suppose I shouldn't hold out much hope for a real empirical analysis of the hypothesis in question. Science is hard; partisan pissing matches, generalizations, and conclusions without any kind of evidence are easy. Oh well.)

idealism hasn't been knocked out of the young by a bitter and unchangable world yet...
when you don't have to really work for a living, or submit yourself to anyone wholeheartedly to live (like a boss at work (and i'm not counting night jobs for students), then its easy to see yourself on the 'outside' of society, looking in, easy to criticise and believe you know the secrets to better the lives of all the poor shmucks who toil endlessly every day just to push money round a system that produces nothing of merit and only makes the rich richer...

Different music, different clothing, different slang, different behavior. Is that enough differents?
Simply put, no. The different groups have small differences, but none of the individuals are being different from other individuals.
Around here, people are just communist because it's the "cool" thing to do. I'd say that on any given day, at least one out of every four people is wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt, yet only one in forty can say what he actually did. It's kind of sad, really. Of course, they also believe in communism as ultimate monetary and social equality, regardless of how much you work.
Interesting. In middle school, we (we being the commies) have actually gotten into fights with people who dared to buy Che shirts. And we all know, at the very least, that he was a communist revolutionary. Although, I know more about Zapata, personally. It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees, after all.

Simply put, no. The different groups have small differences, but none of the individuals are being different from other individuals.

Interesting. In middle school, we (we being the commies) have actually gotten into fights with people who dared to buy Che shirts. And we all know, at the very least, that he was a communist revolutionary. Although, I know more about Zapata, personally. It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees, after all.
May Che's spirit rest in peace. He died fighting against the totaliarian dictators in Latin America, fought for equality and justice, and died fighting. And for that, he should be honored, not used as a symbol by angsty teenagers who don't know shit about him.

Simply put, no. The different groups have small differences, but none of the individuals are being different from other individuals.
.
Ok, why don't you try observing a punk, a gangsta, and a jock for a day. Then tell me if there are no differences.

They do, after all, have different interests, and if you deny that, then you're either intellectually dishonest or retarded.

One of my friends...or former friends(not sure which) is a very strong libertarian and there are plenty of right-wing teenagers. I think left-wing's are more expected and therefore seen.

May Che's spirit rest in peace. He died fighting against the totaliarian dictators in South America, fought for equality and justice, and died fighting. And for that, he should be honored, not used as a symbol by angsty teenagers who don't know shit about him.
This is the first thing that you've said that I agree with. Although he did want to establish a stalinist state...

It's better to die on your feet than live on your knees, after all.

Actually, that quote is commonly misattributed to Zapata, but he was not the first to say it:

http://www.bartleby.com/66/74/30174.html

I have nothing against commies as long as they can prevent a coherent argument to justify their position as opposed to peope who just say "revolution, equality, yeah!"

Its not just the nonsense of extremist marxism that kids love, it is also the nonsense of "anarchism" and of "objectivism."

It gets down to the fact that they arent grown up yet.

When I was a child, childish things, &c. It's even in the bible.

Ok, why don't you try observing a punk, a gangsta, and a jock for a day. Then tell me if there are no differences.

They do, after all, have different interests, and if you deny that, then you're either intellectually dishonest or retarded.
Ah, but do they have different interests?
They all are driven by the same things: the need for sex, the need for food, the need for gratification.
There are even close similarities between their actions: for example, take working out. A punk will work out by fighting, moshing, or doing calisthenics, a gangsta will work out by fighting, dancing, or lifting weights, and a jock will work out by playing football (very similar to fighting), moshing (many jocks are also metalheads), or lifting weights.
Once again, the differences barely go beyond the cosmetic.

Actually, that quote is commonly misattributed to Zapata, but he was not the first to say it:

http://www.bartleby.com/66/74/30174.html

I have nothing against commies as long as they can prevent a coherent argument to justify their position as opposed to peope who just say "revolution, equality, yeah!"
Wow, I always thought it was a Zapata quote.

Ah, but do they have different interests?
They all are driven by the same things: the need for sex, the need for food, the need for gratification.

There are even close similarities between their actions: for example, take working out. A punk will work out by fighting, moshing, or doing calisthenics, a gangsta will work out by fighting, dancing, or lifting weights, and a jock will work out by playing football (very similar to fighting), moshing (many jocks are also metalheads), or lifting weights.
Once again, the differences barely go beyond the cosmetic.
.
1. Those are basic needs. Everyone has them. Especially sex.
2. Even the way they "work out" is defferent, as you clearly stated. So, they may be striving for the same goal, but they have different ways of pursuing it. Besides, a punk would probably be in a band, a gangsta would hang out on the street corner, and a jock would be playing sports. So, yes, they have different interets.

Wow, I always thought it was a Zapata quote.

Well, he did say it, and he was the most popular person to say it. He just wasn't the first.

1. Those are basic needs. Everyone has them. Especially sex.
2. Even the way they "work out" is defferent, as you clearly stated. So, they may be striving for the same goal, but they have different ways of pursuing it. Besides, a punk would probably be in a band, a gangsta would hang out on the street corner, and a jock would be playing sports. So, yes, they have different interets.
Meh, I actually digressed from my original argument on that last post.

My original argument is, that jocks are not different from jocks, gangstas are not different from gangstas, punks are not different from punks (we all do the same things and have the same general beliefs), preps are not different from preps.

Meh, I actually digressed from my original argument on that last post.

My original argument is, that jocks are not different from jocks, gangstas are not different from gangstas, punks are not different from punks (we all do the same things and have the same general beliefs), preps are not different from preps.
yeah...because they belong to the same group. And even then, they are somewhat different.

yeah...because they belong to the same group. And even then, they are somewhat different.
But not very. We aren't individualists, even if we do have some differences.

But not very. We aren't individualists, even if we do have some differences.
Ok. I can see where you're coming from with that.

I'd love to hear some politican tell all the budding young Marxists, "Ok, we'll institute Marxism. The first thing we'll do is eliminate all unnecessary distractions from our lives, like iPods, computer games, pornography, cell phones, and chatrooms. You can dedicate yourselves to the State and we'll find some really nice hog farms you can contribute all your free time to as well."

Ha! Talk about having a "revolution!" :D

I'd love to hear some politican tell all the budding young Marxists, "Ok, we'll institute Marxism. The first thing we'll do is eliminate all unnecessary distractions from our lives, like iPods, computer games, pornogrophy, cell phones, and chatrooms. You can dedicate yourselves to the State and we'll find some really nice hog farms you can contribute all your free time to as well."

Ha! Talk about having a "revolution!" :D
Um... that's stalinism, not marxism.

I'd love to hear some politican tell all the budding young Marxists, "Ok, we'll institute Marxism. The first thing we'll do is eliminate all unnecessary distractions from our lives, like iPods, computer games, pornography, cell phones, and chatrooms. You can dedicate yourselves to the State and we'll find some really nice hog farms you can contribute all your free time to as well."

Ha! Talk about having a "revolution!" :D
Actually, Marxism demeans the state, and would rather have it not exist, as nationalism promotes war. So if the marxists know ANYTHING about Marxism, they wouldn't dedicate themselves to the states.

Actually, Marxism demeans the state, and would rather have it not exist, as nationalism promotes war. So if the marxists know ANYTHING about Marxism, they wouldn't dedicate themselves to the states.
Where did you hear that?

I'm a 15-year old libertarian, for a few of reasons. First of all, our current bitarded political system is leaving my generation with trillions of dollars of formal debt, and much more financial baggage due to entitlements. We also manage to spend an astounding amount of taxpayer money on useless military and foreign policy escapades. Libertarians are possibly the only true fiscal conservatives, and the only people who would consistently advance civil rights.

Why do teenagers/young adults in particular seem to gravitate so much to extreme socialism/Marxism/Marxism-Leninism.

I've often wondered why people in my general age group seem to attach so much to these ideas. I'm not going to rant about the ideologies - suffice to say I prefer capitalism and equity over communism and equality.

I just want to hear people's opinions over why these ideologies seem to be particularly attractive to said demographic.
Because young people tend to have less experience in the world and less understanding of how it works, therefore, they tend to be idealists. Under the circumstance that they truly understand what communism is, they gravitate towards it because it would create the ideal society that they want. Rarely any of them think about how such a state would be created and the nature of mankind.

I've always thought it was because they felt undervalued themselves, and so tended towards ideals that favoured a more egalitarian stance.

I don't believe "welfare only for those who absolutely need it" is a marxist tenet.

In capitalist society, welfare does have a broader role. In a socialist economy, it would be eliminated except for those actually incapable of working.

Because they are in rebellion against what they see as the "wage-slavery" of adult life. Soon to be adults themselves, they secretly wish for a return to the womb, where they were safe and protected from the world and from having to make hard decisions about their place in it. Marxism seems to provide a way to accomplish this, with the State taking the place of Mother.

Um, yeah, okay. Except:

1. Few Marxists believe that the revolution is imminent, so working for the cause they believe in is hardly going to benefit them personally;
2. Marxism does not support a "nanny-state";
3. Being a Marxist in a society that despises Communism is hardly a way to provide easy security.

I'd love to hear some politican tell all the budding young Marxists, "Ok, we'll institute Marxism. The first thing we'll do is eliminate all unnecessary distractions from our lives, like iPods, computer games, pornography, cell phones, and chatrooms. You can dedicate yourselves to the State and we'll find some really nice hog farms you can contribute all your free time to as well."

A Marxist government would have no reason to eliminate distractions and most certainly would not endorse constant labor. To the contrary, one of the aims of Marxism is to liberate the worker from boring and dreary labor.

Learning what Marxism actually is would surely aid you substantially; there are points on which it can be criticized, but that would require, say, actually knowing something about the ideology.

Rarely any of them think about how such a state would be created and the nature of mankind.
A violent revolution, which is caused by capitalism itself. And greed is the nature of mankind. And greed defeats communism if it is in great quantities.

Because young people tend to have less experience in the world and less understanding of how it works, therefore, they tend to be idealists. Under the circumstance that they truly understand what communism is, they gravitate towards it because it would create the ideal society that they want. Rarely any of them think about how such a state would be created and the nature of mankind.

So true, but for one thing I would like to add is the dangers of the exchange of wealth across the masses. Of course this is taking away the possibility of an Environmentally coordinated government and whether the protected areas where animals can live naturally and without disturbance from humans(this means no parks with deer hunting allowed and such, that's not a naturally niche to live by the bullet possibly reaching your fawn's head when it is sipping on some stream water). Okay..Here it is for you, have a conscience after I place this scenario, even if we live in a great utopia of perfect culture, just remember we are still lonely mammals just multiplying and multiplying with ingenius ways to pass time- no matter what the expense.

:Alright Imagine if the United States became a Socialist Government where all are equally paid rationally and for whatever reason we can still have our free speech and citizens have strong political power:

This is my conclusion, the majority would climb to the fullest extent to make wages high as possible (like 20 bucks per hour or something), and whoever the authority- the State, the company maybe, the union of janitors co.-or union of teachers board-or union garbage men- or union of computer programers(yep still making that 20 dollars per hour). Anyways, the bubbling mass would press more and more for routed resources and things across the country or in the region. So look at it like this, we will be equally greedy, equally poor, equally rich, equally killing the environment, equally saving the environment, equally necessitative, equally miserable, equally into ourselves, just equal(not possible by the way because there's too many ways to prove this statement wrong). And of course, instead of having a guilty conscience of using non-biodegradable styrofoam containers for your morning java, you are now voting on a law allowing for the clearing of the everglades for extra farmland and a recently discovered vast petroleum reserve(note: everyone wasn't able to achieve the guaranteed twenty dollars per hour due to thinning small business profit margins, so in order to save money the United States Government seized control of MacDonald's profitable fast food cheap food service in order to not only save millions of dollars but to actually be able to say that our Socialist nation boasts that it can feed all of Africa's starving population)....

As well charge $4.93(double cheeseburger for breakfast, two for lunch, and one for dinner, oh and a small drink so you can get free refills throughout the day) a day for meals for all citizens of U.S. and Canada.

Oh and another thing, maybe we should push for a career coordinating system, so that maybe citizens can start from the get go on what they are to do with their lives and actually be more efficient than in a capitalist nation. Because studies show, that if anyone can do any job they'd prefer to do and still be content with the wage and pay(because it's all the same) than perhaps maybe the restaurant business will go down for laundering money-tips are thus illegal and serving customers is merely no reward for being polite. And also, wait, so the restaurant business will thus likely be more of a volunteer job rather than money to payoff your college books and things(or will the government pay for that too?) Oh joy, let's all become socialist so the many deeds we humans have done without some of our neighbors help, we are now doing as one full contingent of humans parading the world saying the world bank IS the world's bank.

((Probably really stupid and pointless now, but, maybe we can just use this as a cutting board for ideas, ya know, what might happen if we all as equals strive to make our own lives better it may be more or less equal to state that if we notice that the simple problem with capitalism is that we aren't content, and it is winning because our money goes to a contentment it promises to give. The trick is to find something to buy that can actually come in handy, diet pills don't buy food...Hobbies keep you from being lonely thus buying less baseball cards, yugimon, pokemon or something stupid which disguise themselves as hobbies. Cigarettes reduce pregnancy thus reduce children born to be smokers and continue on the cycle of lung cancer and heart disease. Don't forget death will give us an appreciation for life rather than appreciations within the spectrum of life - gas guzzling trucks. Umm, what else is a good need to know, oh yeah, drink lots of the freshest water you can drink, and waste alot of things that are innocent and cheap because that means we'll just have to fix the problem with something more expensive and thus most likely become cheapened in the long hall...oops, companies are already profiting millions for that idea...*sigh-dazani, spring water, harbor mist, zephyrhills.))

Oh darn, what have I done...

Actually, Marxism demeans the state, and would rather have it not exist, as nationalism promotes war. So if the marxists know ANYTHING about Marxism, they wouldn't dedicate themselves to the states.
Oh yeah! I forgot that ... the State is just suppose to "wither away." Hmm. Interesting concept. Too bad it never happens! :p

Um, yeah, okay. Except:

1. Few Marxists believe that the revolution is imminent, so working for the cause they believe in is hardly going to benefit them personally;
2. Marxism does not support a "nanny-state";
3. Being a Marxist in a society that despises Communism is hardly a way to provide easy security.
You do understand the term "wish," do you not?? :rolleyes:

Um... that's stalinism, not marxism.
Marxism yields a power vacume. Politics abhors a power vacume. The mobster as politician is the most likely person to fill a power vacume. Mobster = dictator. Dictator + Russia = Stalin.

A violent revolution, which is caused by capitalism itself. And greed is the nature of mankind. And greed defeats communism if it is in great quantities.
And how do people become equal after the revolution, may I ask? Once someone claims everybody is equal, the inequality appears because that person claiming it is above everybody else in power. People want power; it's a part of their nature, and nobody is going to give it up willingly. As far as I can see, the ideal form of communism is good, but can never be achieved. The way Marx stated to achieve this utopia can only lead to dictatorships.

*unwilling to read so many pages at 11 pm*
I'm a teenager and I, for one, suggest a system where we have a Dictator with supreme authority. Every four years, however, there is an 'election' to be the dictator. This election is more or less a coup and probably a bloody one.

Not to say it's a good system, just something to kill off the radicals while we come up with something reasonable.

Teens are attracted to either uber-conformism (Preps, and their male counterparts, the Jocks) or to underground movements (Punk, Gothic, "Scene" (Prep for even dumber dumbasses), Emo, Communism, Anarchism, and Objectivism amongst them) out of a feeling of being unrepresented.

Teens feel as thought they have no control and no consideration from the system (not unreasonable, seeing as how teens are seen as dangerous hooligans by anyone over the age of 21, and are treated that way). Many then choose to advocate for overthrowing it. Idealism and inexperience are a big part of that, as teens honestly do beleive that they, unlike the people before them, really can make it work.

I don't remember which Communist on here said it, but the last time the question came up he said something along the lines of "They who have least, know all" (or at least think they know all).

But hey, I'm a teen, a Punker, and I am by no means a communist. Hell, I can't even manage garden variety Anarchism any more either.

they tend to still be in high school and tend to be taught by people and hang around people with the same views. they are completely shielded by their parents.

an observation i have made is that many people that are in school (college, high school, whatever) tend to be more on the lib socialist side. i dont know if its over education and not enough experience or what

Why do teenagers/young adults in particular seem to gravitate so much to extreme socialism/Marxism/Marxism-Leninism.

I've often wondered why people in my general age group seem to attach so much to these ideas. I'm not going to rant about the ideologies - suffice to say I prefer capitalism and equity over communism and equality.

I just want to hear people's opinions over why these ideologies seem to be particularly attractive to said demographic.
Teens and youth in general gravitate towards the extremes of the political spectrum, not necessarilly towards the left one. That's because of their idealism, lack of experience (meaning they are easier to manipulate with fine words) and the more rebelious nature of that age (hormones, hormones and more hormones). That sums it up, I think.

You do understand the term "wish," do you not?? :rolleyes:

And you do understand that if these teenagers "secretly wished" for a return to the womb, Marxism does not offer them anything of the sort?

In capitalist society, welfare does have a broader role. In a socialist economy, it would be eliminated except for those actually incapable of working.

It would be eliminated completely as income is tied to need and not production. As everyone needs, everyone will have income.

It would be eliminated completely as income is tied to need and not production.

Not necessarily. It depends on what model is adopted, and very few models have no mechanisms to deal with those who do not work yet can.

Not necessarily. It depends on what model is adopted, and very few models have no mechanisms to deal with those who do not work yet can.

How can they?

How can they?

Well, one way is more or less what occurs in capitalist economies. Income is tied to jobs; the only differences in this respect are that those who cannot work are cared for (and most capitalist states these days have something to that effect) and that, at least theoretically, if you want a job you can get one.

In a society without any money, there would probably be either a mechanism for expulsion or for restricting a person's access to luxuries.

In most teenage interpretations of a communist government, there is social welfare that applies equally to those who work and those who do not, wealth is distributed equally, etc.

That is not communism... know the phrase "From each as he is able, to each as his need"? Or something along those lines. Cant remember the exact phrasing. But anyway, meaning anyone who can make a contribution is to do so.

What you describe above (welfare applying equally to everyone) is more like the welfare state proposed by the... what was it called... the Beveridge report was it? The report in Britain during WW2... Basically it said benefits should be universal if they met the conditions for them (like child benefit if someone had a family, a dole or whatever you want to call it if out of work) rather than requiring some sort of test of whether people "deserved" the benefits.

Anyway... I personally stand for a more social democratic model, rather than communism. Its too idealistic, and requires revolution, something that would never work to bring about what they say it will.

Stalin didn't believe in it as strongly as I do. If anything, Russia was national-socialist. If there is equality for all, no poverty, no war, no violence, I don't care about freedom of speech or expression.

you would never get any of those in a communist country (equality for all, no poverty, no war, no violence) unless that country were by itself, in a vacuum, on earth.

because there will always be people who value freedom over forced equality, and communism severely cramps freedom.

Oh yeah! I forgot that ... the State is just suppose to "wither away." Hmm. Interesting concept. Too bad it never happens! :p
If we do it right, it will.

Why do teenagers/young adults in particular seem to gravitate so much to extreme socialism/Marxism/Marxism-Leninism.

I've often wondered why people in my general age group seem to attach so much to these ideas. I'm not going to rant about the ideologies - suffice to say I prefer capitalism and equity over communism and equality.

I just want to hear people's opinions over why these ideologies seem to be particularly attractive to said demographic.
I think young adults tend to gravitate toward any extremes, whether it be toward the right, left, top, or bottom of the political field. People's understanding of the world, and of their fellow humans, tends to become more complex as they age, and this means that younger people have a more simplified concept of how things work. Extremes are simple; you are either X or you are Y, you're either GOOD or you are BAD. Extreme views tend to stress that there is ONE GOOD SOLUTION, period, and this is about as simple as you can get.

With that said, I think not all young people work this way, and I think plenty of older people never grow out of it ;).

Lofty ideals to be sure, but in no communist country have they ever worked. And those people believed in it as strongly as you do, so what makes you thing it will ever work?

Cuba. No, it's not perfect now, but in comparison it to Batista's time...

Besides, isn't free speech, freedom of expression, etc, of any importance to you?

What Marx wrote makes this impossible how?

Cuba. No, it's not perfect now, but in comparison it to Batista's time...



What Marx wrote make this impossible how?


I suppose it is what Marxists do is what makes it impossible...

Why do teenagers/young adults in particular seem to gravitate so much to extreme socialism/Marxism/Marxism-Leninism.

I've often wondered why people in my general age group seem to attach so much to these ideas. I'm not going to rant about the ideologies - suffice to say I prefer capitalism and equity over communism and equality.

I just want to hear people's opinions over why these ideologies seem to be particularly attractive to said demographic.


Silly question really, may as well ask why babies need to wear nappies. It's all part of things, and as you grow you change.

Okay then I suppose not silly if you hold an interest socialocial studies or want to know more about how the brain and bodies grows and changes throughout life.

Sorry I don't even know why I posted seeing as I have just retracted my firts statement. Still I guess I'm bored, senile, or addicted!:D

I suppose it is what Marxists do is what makes it impossible...
Main reason is Soviet Union. It was a totalitarian state - not something communism as an idea should be blamed for, we have had an equal number of capitalist/fascist/rightist dictatorships - like someone said, national socialist more than really communist. And Soviet Union was behind the vast majority if not every Communist revolution of the last century, as the main supporter and idol.

Today's communist/leftist youth and movements aren't tied to SU anymore. They might even have learnt something from the mistakes and faults of it.

Main reason is Soviet Union. It was a totalitarian state - not something communism as an idea should be blamed for, we have had an equal number of capitalist/fascist/rightist dictatorships - like someone said, national socialist more than really communist. And Soviet Union was behind the vast majority if not every Communist revolution of the last century, as the main supporter and idol.

Today's communist/leftist youth and movements aren't tied to SU anymore. They might even have learnt something from the mistakes and faults of it.


Has there ever been a marxist state that did NOT end up being very represssive?

Marxism equates political malpractise.

They might have learned - or they might screw up even more.
No way of telling in advance.
And no reason to repeat dangerous experiments.

Sorry, must dash off again :-(

Being a 14-year-old (turning 15 on June 12!) male teenager myself residing in Hong Kong I personally notice that most of my peers are either apathetic (perhaps libertarian or anarchist) or they do care and are often moderate left-wingers or radical leftists, a la Marxism.

Personally, I'm a moderate liberal that is vocal of my views on the world and encourage others to know more about global politics, but I'm not viewed highly upon by some of my peers because of their apathy or because they don't understand or simply not give a crap and stick their heads in the sand.

Mostly teens and young adults, IMHO, are either politically apathetic libertarians/anarchists or radical leftists/rightists, from what I've seen.

And you do understand that if these teenagers "secretly wished" for a return to the womb, Marxism does not offer them anything of the sort?
You are correct ... it offers virtually nothing at all. Still it provides the illusion of cradle-to-grave security, which is where the attraction lies.

If we do it right, it will.
Hmm. And when will that be, do you think? After the last would-be dictator has died?

Hmm. And when will that be, do you think? After the last would-be dictator has died?

When we don't have National Socialist Soviet Union waving the red flag and calling itself communist. And USA has lost its role of Supreme World Dominator.

That will not take too long.

You are correct ... it offers virtually nothing at all. Still it provides the illusion of cradle-to-grave security, which is where the attraction lies.

It promises equality. A fair society. A society that appreciates food, apartment and education for everyone over helluvalot cash to few and strong GDP.

Cuba/USA.

Cuba. No, it's not perfect now, but in comparison it to Batista's time...
...
I've never been to Cuba, but some of my acquaintances visited the island not long ago. They were appalled by widespread prostitution and rampant corruption; they called it 'the smell of rotting socialism'. Being Russians, they know that smell very well.

Has there ever been a marxist state that did NOT end up being very represssive?

Marxism equates political malpractise.

They might have learned - or they might screw up even more.
No way of telling in advance.
And no reason to repeat dangerous experiments.

Sorry, must dash off again :-(

1st, they always had to fight for power. Communism (or a system calling itself communist) has always come to power via violent revolution, war. Fighting a war requires strong leadership, and from "strong leadership" there is short step to personal cult and dictatorship, under those circumstances.

About your second point, well. To me, and to many others, global capitalism appears as a very malfunctioning, oppressive and... well, stupid system. This has to change. I'm not saying communism is the way out - in fact, I preferr anarchosyndicalism over it - but it's hardly worse than the current capitalism.

I've never been to Cuba, but some of my acquaintances visited the island not long ago. They were appalled by widespread prostitution and rampant corruption; they called it 'the smell of rotting socialism'. Being Russians, they know that smell very well.

Hehehe! You're supporting me with that, actually. Because what your friends saw there was the outcome of their introduction of small scale capitalism, opening free market system and turism. There were no prostitutes in the streets of Havanna in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's.

Communism ideally would always cater to the weak. Not the meek, mind you, just those who rest on the merits of others. Therefore, a communist society would always be running at the lowest common denominator. Such systems would make us no different from docile herd animals, which operate at the speed and efficiency of their weakest members. In practicality, communist societies realize this and therefore set standards that all have to achieve or be disposed of. This is why communism never works as advertised.

Capitalism, while cruel, assures that those who dearly wish to succeed do and those not willing to put in the effort don't. Capitalism in it's concentrated form is a despicable thing, allowing coalitions to control others, therefore a democratic capitalist society is the current epitome of civilization, permitting a meritocracy while giving some allowance for the people who are able to do less.

I did once consider communism as viable, however once people understand the true nature of human beings they understand that the communist system is too detrimental to the mental well-being. A lax system of that kind would do no good (like Soviet Russia) and a rigidly enforced system (like IngSoc in 1984) would turn their followers and subjects into nothing better than herd beasts, following what they truly believe to be the will of the masses, degrading the drive to achieve anything past the ordinary (something I believe to be a uniquely human trait, at least on Earth).

Perhaps China has found the ultimate compromise between compassion for the weak and meriting those who strive to succeed. Only time will tell, as they continue to live in the shadow of the Tianmennen Square incident. Personally, I think that the Chinese system would be more successful in a different culture (which I refuse to qualify so as to not inadvertently imply a general insult at the Chinese people).

Also, those who do not value free expression are the greatest hypocrites that can possibly exist. However, I do value their expression on stating that. I value freedom and free speech, however the reason why I didn't state the qualifications above is I do not believe I am able to accurately summarize my statements over such a limited form of text communication like a message board.

Hehehe! You're supporting me with that, actually. Because what your friends saw there was the outcome of their introduction of small scale capitalism, opening free market system and turism. There were no prostitutes in the streets of Havanna in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's.
What makes you so sure? I'll look int the reminiscences of Soviet visitors to Cuba.

And Cuba is hardly opened to free market; as for tourists... "A society that appreciates food, apartment and education for everyone over helluvalot cash to few and strong GDP" produces a significant number of cadgers who leech on to each and every foreigner with hard currency. It seems that they are after 'some cash for few'. :)

Hehehe! You're supporting me with that, actually. Because what your friends saw there was the outcome of their introduction of small scale capitalism, opening free market system and turism. There were no prostitutes in the streets of Havanna in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's.


Do you know that for sure? Are you absolutely positive? Have you personally toured every single street in Havanna in every hour of the day with a lie detector looking for prostitutes?

Additionally, do you know that this is because of capitalism and not the eventual degredation of ANY socialist/communist society? There is no way for you to be sure, with the minute exception or circumstance that you turn out to be god, in which case why you are browsing on a forum and not out answering prayers shows too much pettiness for a benevolent diety.

1) Communism doesn't necessitate destroying freedom of speech.
2) Communism is not always revolutionary.
3) Communism does not always equal Marxism does not always equal Stalinism.

1) Communism doesn't necessitate destroying freedom of speech.
2) Communism is not always revolutionary.
3) Communism does not always equal Marxism does not always equal Stalinism.

All the above is true of Orthodox Communism. However, in all the times it's been tried, not once has it lived up to it's ideals. I think Vietnam is the closest to the true ideals of Communism. There is a difference between theoretical ratios and practical ratios, and the practical ratio is loaded very heavily against a working, stable and irrepressive communist government.

As was said earlier, there's always a select few of youthful rebels who throw a twist on the usual situation by becoming libertarians or anarcho-capitalists. I'm uncertain as to why this is, but perhaps some people are more pre-disposed to aggressive individualism than towards universalism and conformity.

Wait. That's making sense. Wow. I've never thought of it that way before. Between the ages of 13 and 20 many people find themselves struggling to establish an identity for themselves, and quite often they find that it's easier just to mesh with the vast bulk of the rest of humanity than to develop their own personalities. From this unconscious assimilative strategy (which typically is not noticed in most people, and typically doesn't manifest itself in a political fashion in most either), one might assume that in certain individuals take this to a higher level of thought and find that a communist or communalist ideology fits in with this drive in the most natural way possible.

On the flip side, we might also see that aggressive individualists who went out of the way to define themselves as separate from a group (what I'm talking about is not joining up with a subculture, which is identical to joining up with the mainstream culture, instead I'm talking about people who say "damn the culture, I'll do what I like) typically wind up as more libertarian types.

Maybe I'm just putting my own perspective on this. I know for a fact that I've had friends from all across the social spectrum, that I've never really been classifiable in any fewer than four social groups and I've always done what I've enjoyed. I also happen to have developed a libertarian viewpoint simultaneously.

I'm probably making no sense at all, am I?

On the flip side, we might also see that aggressive individualists who went out of the way to define themselves as separate from a group (what I'm talking about is not joining up with a subculture, which is identical to joining up with the mainstream culture, instead I'm talking about people who say "damn the culture, I'll do what I like) typically wind up as more libertarian types.

I think that way, though I'm an out-and-out Anarchist now. I say let people set up their communes and free market cities. Let them do what they like. I don't give a shit.

I stress the importance of not putting everyone in a standardised system.

Why do teenagers/young adults in particular seem to gravitate so much to extreme socialism/Marxism/Marxism-Leninism.

I've often wondered why people in my general age group seem to attach so much to these ideas. I'm not going to rant about the ideologies - suffice to say I prefer capitalism and equity over communism and equality.

I just want to hear people's opinions over why these ideologies seem to be particularly attractive to said demographic.

Most in my 6th Form are filthy tories, so the above generalisation isn't necessarily correct. Anyway, most people degenerate into New Labour cynicism by 35, so fear not, establishment.

It seems that kids, at their stage of development in life, are less able to imagine potential injustices than are mature people, and also less likely to learn from the mistakes of others.

I don't think that kids can work out the full implications of things, only react to the way they percieve immediate unfairness.

This might explain why their views mature when their minds do, especially because the views which seem most likely to change are also the ones most informed by an ability to work out potential problems.

I think that way, though I'm an out-and-out Anarchist now. I say let people set up their communes and free market cities. Let them do what they like. I don't give a shit.

I stress the importance of not putting everyone in a standardised system.
I agree with this as well. Because I've been something of an oddball my whole life, I've come to view government's ideal role as one of providing minimal structure for the collection of individuals who are trying to all get along. I view people as all very different, and I feel that society is just a set of compromises we agree on to be able to function around those who are very different from ourselves. I don't think government is supposed to force us to be the same, or force us to like each other, or force us to agree, just that it should ensure that we all are able to enjoy the maximal amount of freedom without blocking somebody else from enjoying equal freedom. I think that's pretty standard thinking for a life-long oddball :).

Why do teenagers/young adults in particular seem to gravitate so much to extreme socialism/Marxism/Marxism-Leninism.

I've often wondered why people in my general age group seem to attach so much to these ideas. I'm not going to rant about the ideologies - suffice to say I prefer capitalism and equity over communism and equality.

I just want to hear people's opinions over why these ideologies seem to be particularly attractive to said demographic.

Its the only thing they know. Their moms are their nanny states

Hang on..............

Didn't we have this exact same thread 3 days ago?

I think that way, though I'm an out-and-out Anarchist now. I say let people set up their communes and free market cities. Let them do what they like. I don't give a shit.

I stress the importance of not putting everyone in a standardised system.
I probably should not have specified anarcho-capitalism, as outright anarchism would fit into a similar mindset as well.

Hang on..............

Didn't we have this exact same thread 3 days ago?
And three days before that, and three days before that, and three days before that...

But seriously I've been gone for a while, and this topic's a great time-killer for those of us who have nothing to do at work besides sit here and play solitaire.

Any communist society cant work on the basis that you have too much power concentrated in the State.

With this power comes Ego maniacs who just have to gain rings on the military and all the funding for it is at thier commie finger tips.

And if someone does not wish to work and a society itself grows to a halt what do you do??? End your system of hold guns to the workers heads.

Communism doesnt build long term wealth so it will always crumble into a situation of instability. Just look at Soviet economy (same as your "true communist economy")had negative growth since 1920 hardly grew at all

Yes, well, I'm not "A lot of teenagers". I understand the idealogy of Communism, and understand what it's fighting for. I am a Communist because it will allow social equality, free health care, and welfare only for those who absolutely need it.

same here, i have read the communist manefesto, i would like to see many people who call themselves communists or anti-communists say they have read the real basis of it. Along with various che and lenin books. I know about marxism and support it. So i am not the usual, ignorant socialist teen.

I agree with this as well. Because I've been something of an oddball my whole life, I've come to view government's ideal role as one of providing minimal structure for the collection of individuals who are trying to all get along. I view people as all very different, and I feel that society is just a set of compromises we agree on to be able to function around those who are very different from ourselves. I don't think government is supposed to force us to be the same, or force us to like each other, or force us to agree, just that it should ensure that we all are able to enjoy the maximal amount of freedom without blocking somebody else from enjoying equal freedom. I think that's pretty standard thinking for a life-long oddball :).

Yeah. I'm just tired of governments shoving things down everyone's throats. What's good for many isn't good for all...

I probably should not have specified anarcho-capitalism, as outright anarchism would fit into a similar mindset as well.

Yeah. What I'm looking at is a mix of both worlds: Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Communism. I think the groups of people would adopt what's best for them, though one can't ever be certain. I'd just like to see how it'd work out.

Do you know that for sure? Are you absolutely positive? Have you personally toured every single street in Havanna in every hour of the day with a lie detector looking for prostitutes?

Additionally, do you know that this is because of capitalism and not the eventual degredation of ANY socialist/communist society? There is no way for you to be sure, with the minute exception or circumstance that you turn out to be god, in which case why you are browsing on a forum and not out answering prayers shows too much pettiness for a benevolent diety.

Calm down. No, I don't know for sure. But I know for sure it wasn't NEARLY this widespread. And when you compare it to capitalist nations of the region, Honduras, Guatemala and Panama for example, Cuba has done better. With prostitution, with education, with healthcare, with housing, with feeding. Now they're letting capitalism in, and this is what happened. It's quite obvious. But of course, I can't be sure about anything. Elvis may still be alive.

What makes you so sure? I'll look int the reminiscences of Soviet visitors to Cuba.

And Cuba is hardly opened to free market; as for tourists... "A society that appreciates food, apartment and education for everyone over helluvalot cash to few and strong GDP" produces a significant number of cadgers who leech on to each and every foreigner with hard currency. It seems that they are after 'some cash for few'. :)

Of course, Cuba is really poor. It's natural that they're begging it from tourists, but aren't there any beggars in other countries of Latin America, hmmm? In comparison to them Cuba has done wonders, considering their resources and possibilities, not to mention the American trade embargo.

Of course, Cuba is really poor. It's natural that they're begging it from tourists, but aren't there any beggars in other countries of Latin America, hmmm? In comparison to them Cuba has done wonders, considering their resources and possibilities, not to mention the American trade embargo.
Cuba operates under an infrastructure that is identical to the one which was in place when Castro came to power. The number of automobiles, telephones, televisions and radios is virtually unchanged. The Castro government has done a remarkable job of not improving anything at all. Cuba is quite literally a time capsule, with so many of the things people deal with being straight out of the fifties.

Calm down. No, I don't know for sure. But I know for sure it wasn't NEARLY this widespread. And when you compare it to capitalist nations of the region, Honduras, Guatemala and Panama for example, Cuba has done better. With prostitution, with education, with healthcare, with housing, with feeding. Now they're letting capitalism in, and this is what happened. It's quite obvious. But of course, I can't be sure about anything. Elvis may still be alive.
So, why Cuba is wrecking all its successes by letting capitalism in. What is the reason? Has Castro turned into a 'wrecker'?

Personally I think that Castro is just a ploy by the US government to keep cigar quality high. The plan is to restict American access to Cuban cigars, and make it so that the only American who can afford Cuban cigars are the one's who are willing travel to Canada, and those are naturally the one's who are willing to pay the highest price. Once the American market is opened to Cuban cigars, the price and quality will both fall at the same time, as a result of the desire to meet the radically increased demand.

I mean, after all, look at the last 14 years...both US Presidents in this time frame have had a...passion...for cigars.

Of course, Cuba is really poor. It's natural that they're begging it from tourists, but aren't there any beggars in other countries of Latin America, hmmm? In comparison to them Cuba has done wonders, considering their resources and possibilities, not to mention the American trade embargo.
So, Cuba is not a model of socioeconomic success? 'Poor but proud...' altough it seems that they aren't proud at all. All those refugees, prostitutes, pimps, cadgers... Hardly a model society.

Why do teenagers/young adults in particular seem to gravitate so much to extreme socialism/Marxism/Marxism-Leninism.

I've often wondered why people in my general age group seem to attach so much to these ideas. I'm not going to rant about the ideologies - suffice to say I prefer capitalism and equity over communism and equality.

I just want to hear people's opinions over why these ideologies seem to be particularly attractive to said demographic.


Because teenagers are usually broke.

So, Cuba is not a model of socioeconomic success? 'Poor but proud...' altough it seems that they aren't proud at all. All those refugees, prostitutes, pimps, cadgers... Hardly a model society.

I don't know about that. Cuba has had problems for three basic reasons. First, prior to Castro's takeover, Cuba's economy was built on feeding raw commodities like sugar to the U.S.; it was a completely dependent banana republic in the Batista era. Thus, the embargo dealt, and continues to deal, an absolutely crippling blow to the Cuban economy. Second, they managed to get some support after the embargo from the Soviet Union, but that life-support line was cut by 1990. Since then, they haven't had any real means of accreting capital: the only people who have the money to really accelerate Cuba's capital development in the region is America, and they aren't taking. No other nation in the region can really afford to import Cuban products, and the supply lines to Europe are too long to offer a tenable shipping agreement. Third, the U.S. post-Cold War has been especially unforgiving of foreign investment to Cuba. If you actually look at Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, you'll see that foreign companies who traffic in "stolen" merchandise, namely crops grown on land that once belonged to Floridian expatriates, that company can be sued in U.S. court to recoup the damages, even if none of those ever entered or passed through U.S. ports. There's a loophole in the law that Clinton and Bush have been exploiting, but make no mistake: we have been doing our damnedest, even to the point of rewriting international law, to starve Cuba of resources.

For all that, Cuba still has some very beneficial arrangements set up. Their land-ownership reforms have benefitted the common man immensely, and their healthcare system is both free and arguably as good if not better than any other nation in the region, including the U.S. That's hardly a standard of abject failure by any means.

I don't know about that. Cuba has had problems for three basic reasons. First, prior to Castro's takeover, Cuba's economy was built on feeding raw commodities like sugar to the U.S.; it was a completely dependent banana republic in the Batista era. Thus, the embargo dealt, and continues to deal, an absolutely crippling blow to the Cuban economy.
Yes, but they managed to fing a trading partner, or, more to the point, a source of support -- the USSR. And the USSR decided to have Cuba as a kind of advertisement for socialism

Second, they managed to get some support after the embargo from the Soviet Union, but that life-support line was cut by 1990. Since then, they haven't had any real means of accreting capital: the only people who have the money to really accelerate Cuba's capital development in the region is America, and they aren't taking.No other nation in the region can really afford to import Cuban products, and the supply lines to Europe are too long to offer a tenable shipping agreement.
They weren't too long for the USSR, BTW. Unfortunately any rapprochement between Castro and Washington is inconceivable, and Cuba is not going to trade with the USA in the near future.


Third, the U.S. post-Cold War has been especially unforgiving of foreign investment to Cuba. If you actually look at Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, you'll see that foreign companies who traffic in "stolen" merchandise, namely crops grown on land that once belonged to Floridian expatriates, that company can be sued in U.S. court to recoup the damages, even if none of those ever entered or passed through U.S. ports. There's a loophole in the law that Clinton and Bush have been exploiting, but make no mistake: we have been doing our damnedest, even to the point of rewriting international law, to starve Cuba of resources.
Washington is quite vengeful.

For all that, Cuba still has some very beneficial arrangements set up. Their land-ownership reforms have benefitted the common man immensely, and their healthcare system is both free and arguably as good if not better than any other nation in the region, including the U.S. That's hardly a standard of abject failure by any means.
The common man was dirt poor, and is dirt poor, I reckon, As for the healthcare system -- ours (i.e. Soviet) was advertised as the best on Earth, but my family, having been connected with medicine for a long time, knew the hollowness of that claim. I do not know what are the conditions in Cuban hospitals, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are less rosy than it is commonly said.

So true. That's pretty much all communism is good for - living off of others.


Yep. Just like CEO's and shareholders of large corporations.:rolleyes:

Yep. Just like CEO's and shareholders of large corporations.:rolleyes:
Shareholders receive benefit because of the risks they take with the money they invest in the corporation. I know, I've taken some risks with my money and it wound up hurting me big time. (goddam you lucent, goddam you)

Why do teenagers/young adults in particular seem to gravitate so much to extreme socialism/Marxism/Marxism-Leninism.

I've often wondered why people in my general age group seem to attach so much to these ideas. I'm not going to rant about the ideologies - suffice to say I prefer capitalism and equity over communism and equality.

I just want to hear people's opinions over why these ideologies seem to be particularly attractive to said demographic.

I heard a saying once, I don't remember the exact wording or attribution, but to paraphrase. One who isn't a liberal when young has no heart, one who isn't conservative when old, has no head. (if anyone knows the exact wording and who said it, let me know).

It just seems to be a natural occurrence, probably owing to hormones, rebellion and lack of experience.

1st, they always had to fight for power. Communism (or a system calling itself communist) has always come to power via violent revolution, war. Fighting a war requires strong leadership, and from "strong leadership" there is short step to personal cult and dictatorship, under those circumstances.

About your second point, well. To me, and to many others, global capitalism appears as a very malfunctioning, oppressive and... well, stupid system. This has to change. I'm not saying communism is the way out - in fact, I preferr anarchosyndicalism over it - but it's hardly worse than the current capitalism.


Anarchism - another system with a highly negative trackrecord.

What ires me ( sorry it shows all the time ) is the assumption made by certain people, who quite often are quite young, is that dangerous experiments, conducted without an adequate methodology should be tolerated.

This tendency to experiment on a large scale ( as opposed to highly conservative and small scale and carefully conducted experimentation ) is dangerous! It is the political equivalent of the unauthorised experimentation that lead to the Chernobyl-disaster.

About a year back, I was in a country that had just experienced within one week two deadly casualties as a result of so-called alternative medicine. That people were dead due to malpractice was bad enough.

What really got me furious is the fact that the defendants of alternative medicine responded politically to their incompetence by issuing a petition calling for more public support for their murderous incompetence!

People who do things like that should not be rewarded for experimenting - they should be punished with the utmost severity for their failures.

Cuba operates under an infrastructure that is identical to the one which was in place when Castro came to power. The number of automobiles, telephones, televisions and radios is virtually unchanged. The Castro government has done a remarkable job of not improving anything at all. Cuba is quite literally a time capsule, with so many of the things people deal with being straight out of the fifties.
Cuba could turn itself into a first world country by exporting "classic autos in working condition" to American collectors.

Why do teenagers/young adults in particular seem to gravitate so much to extreme socialism/Marxism/Marxism-Leninism.


dunno, when i was a teenager i was a bit of a centrist. slightly left leaning and slightly authoritarian. then i got out and saw the world and decided i didn't like how it was run and the way everything decision comes down to whether you can afford it or not. so now i'm an anarcho-communist. i'm 21 btw.