• aaro [they/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      110
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      fwiw, the Russian people of 1916 didn’t have an intensive understanding of Marxism either, they were just pissed off at the status quo and knew the tsar needed to go. You don’t need your whole population to be learnt, just eager for change and open to new leadership.

      Not that we have the makings of a Vanguard party either, but it’s a lot less bleak of a prospect than getting 51% of Americans to read Capital.

      • GaveUp [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I agree with the overall sentiment that a significant portion of the population needing to understand theory for a revolution is completely false (that’s what the vanguard is for!) but it’s gonna be a long while (like probably at least a century or so) for Americans material conditions to be anywhere near poor enough for them to want to risk their lives

      • StalinForTime [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re completely correct. And the Bolsheviks also faced the issue of being outright atheistic in a country where the vast majority were fairly devout peasants for many of whom the Tsar was still a religious figure and who couldn’t really imagine what developed capitalism, let alone socialism, would mean. It’s also important to note that this was not an exclusively rural issue, as the majority of urban workers and soldiers had come fairly recently from peasant contexts.

        In other words they had their work cut out for them in many ways that contemporary communists in the Imperial core do not. On the other hand, Russia in 1917 was not a society in which the core values necessary for the functioning of a capitalist society had fully imbued everyday culture and life in the way they had already done in Western countries and as is the case in the contemporary world, which is more capitalistic than any point prior to the 1980s (though I would argue that this peaked in the late 90s/early 2000s). The transformation of politics into another identitarian symbol and virtue-signalling component of western ultras’ personal aesthetics is a reflection of this conception of politics as a part of personal identity, of the construction and selling of oneself as a purely aesthetic product. For many leftists in the west their leftism amounts mainly to a form of lifestyle aesthetics, and often as a kind of surrogate or substitute form feelings of communal belonging and spiritual, religious or historical meaning and significance. Now I’m not saying the latter are unimportant or necessarily bad in every respect, but it does seem to be the extent of the political participation of most people self-identifying as socialist in the west. Capitalism obviously sells us the opiates to lessen the anguish of the sense of nihilism it also naturally produces, and it has become less and less shy or reluctant to do so by repackaging leftist, socialist or communist symbols. This has a broader, more indirect effect on culture, which doesn’t reduce to, say, a capitalist firm selling Che Guevara t-shirts. A great example from American popular culture is Hip Hop. Contemporary mainstream rap, especially trap, in many ways reflect how the political radicalism of 70s black politics was transmuted into the popularized black petit bourgeois entrepreneurialism of the 1980s, and which you see in contemporary rap music everywhere, only where the American dream ideology takes the classic form of socio-economic ascent from the lumpenproletariat as opposed to the traditional working class. Political radicalism is far less at the forefront of Hip Hop than it was in the 80s.

        The key thing that the West is lacking is not dislike for the conditions of capitalism. Your average worker also does not think that the conditions capitalism forces them to live in are acceptable. The issue is that they do not think of these as the natural or inevitable conditions of capitalism. Most people cannot define capitalism, let alone correctly. One of the issues for contemporary communists definitely seems to me to be that of how to make clear sense of the fact that while the conditions of capitalist life in the West are worsening for the majority, there has not been more impulse towards the construction of vanguard parties. Definitely relevant is the general cultural factor mentioned above, as well as a truly industrial propaganda-media complex that leverages the ‘failures’ (real and imagined) of previous attempts at socialism and plays without shame on ideas of nationalism (including liberal ones of very limited modern progress on social issues in the US) in order leave little room for people to feel comfortable expressing openly communist ideas. Poor education is also an issue.

    • daisy@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would disagree that it doesn’t mean anything. At the very least it shows half of young Americans are open-minded enough to consider an alternative to the unrestrained liberalism that they’ve been soaked in their entire lives.

      • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Young people of every generation are statistically more open-minded than their older counterparts. It doesn’t necessarily indicate a generational shift until it can be demonstrated that the ideology persists in traditionally pro-capitalist age groups.

        Was it not the boomers who were the edgy anti-capitalist hippies during the 60s and 70s?

        I’m not holding my breath; I fully expect millennials and gen Z to go full grillpill when they have more stake in the status quo (401k, house, kids, career goals, etc).

        I hope I’m wrong. But we should oppose simple optimism. Optimism doesn’t change the world, it encourages an attitude of helplessness and complacency at times when direct action is necessary.

        • bigboopballs [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          I fully expect millennials and gen Z to go full grillpill when they have more stake in the status quo (401k, house, kids, career goals, etc).

          so when do you think millennials are going to have those things? the youngest millennials are 27 and the oldest are 42. will we be able to afford housing and kids and have careers any day now?

          • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            About half of American millennials own homes, based on a quick Google search. I agree it’s bad for far too many younger Americans, but they also aren’t a uniform bloc all facing the same material conditions.

            Possessing this or that particular stake in the status quo was not the essential point. The point was that having any stake at all tends to deradicalize people over time. This is all the more true when someone’s anticapitalism has no leftist theoretical basis or social organization.

        • WoofWoof91 [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          I fully expect millennials and gen Z to go full grillpill when they have more stake in the status quo (401k, house, kids, career goals, etc).

          the millennials who were going to de-radicalize mostly have by now

        • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Optimism doesn’t change the world, but if you don’t take time to recognize something might be a positive, that just seems to increase helplessness even more to me. Like there has been action done to encourage the growth of socialism by people for decades, so seeing that there seems to be a least one indicator of it not going further backwards, we should reflect on that lest our spirits be completely crushed.

          • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Angela Davis said a few days ago: “Hope is the condition of all struggles.” I believe this is true and don’t desire for leftists to lose hope. But just as deadly to movements is blind optimism, the belief that things will necessarily improve automatically and without struggle.

            Religion may help the masses cope with the world, but it is still illusory and often leads to counter revolutionary thought, if one puts more faith in external causes rather than revolutionary ie human-driven change.

            A poll of youth opinion of capitalism is meaningless in itself and needs to be normalized with historical data, such as the tendency for younger age groups to be historically more optimistic by default before those same people become more cynical and reactionary in later life.

            • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              That is true, much more important than faith and optimism or anything like that is determined action. I think I’ve just been feeling a bit too pessimistic/stressed lately so felt like I needed to defend positivity haha.

              • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I feel you, it’s hard lately especially with Palestine. In spite of everything I said, there are still things which make me hopeful. There is more support for Palestine among western citizens than I remember from past events in the region. Leaders from the global majority countries are cooperating more and more, and the disproportionate influence of the US has been waning in significant strides in the last 20 years. These occurrences of blatant imperialism will hopefully grow more infrequent as a result. Of course, that’s what the neoliberals also promised in the 1980s, but I think there is a stronger case for it this time.

        • CrimsonSage@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          No boomers were always incredibly reactionary. The 60’s was driven by a minority of radicals and young people who were rebelling against the draft in a context of heavy unionization and the existence of the ussr. If you look at the actual polling though boomers were actually more economically conservative than their parents.

        • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I fully expect millennials and gen Z to go full grillpill when they have more stake in the status quo (401k, house, kids, career goals, etc).

          Thats a reasonable expectation. I don’t know how much of a stake in the staus quo anyone from these generations will ever have though. Which is bad to live through, but promising in terms of radicalizing

    • CrimsonSage@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would say this is unnecessarily pessimistic view of things. People like to make eternal pronouncements about the “nature” of labor in the imperial core being inherently reactionary, but the truth is that most of those are base off of a limited historical data set that is much more nuanced than most admit. I think things are unquestionably looking up and this polling is just one bit of evidence of that. I know for my part I have had infinitely more luck trying to organize my work place over the past 4 years than I ever had before. People aren’t going to magically become Marxists in America, but we will have a significantly better go of it if people are starting from a position of “capitalism sucks” rather than “capitalism is the most perfectest ting ever!”

    • CarbonScored [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This “the youth will always just hate the establishment” meme is still harmful and based on very little. The only basis for the idea that people will become more pro-capitalist with age is based on a very weak correlation of the parties voted for by populations as they age, which is just not great data on so many fronts.

    • nonailsleft
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well realising they’re getting fucked by capitalism might be a bit of an important step in Marx’ theory

  • axont [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think this is that one survey from 2016. If I remember right it only asked for reactions to certain words, positive or negative. Whenever I see similar polls it makes me consider the average American doesn’t see the terms capitalism and socialism like we do. The average person sees these as character traits, not movements or distinct economic structures. Capitalist simply means greedy businessman, nothing structural. Socialism is high taxes and government doing stuff.

    There’s not a lot of coherent public discourse about this.

    • Justice@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      1 year ago

      A lot of Americans who own ZERO capital consider themselves ideological capitalists. This isn’t an impossible stance. I wouldn’t even say it’s a hypocritical one. But it is absolutely a moronic stance born from ignorance basically like you laid out above. I’d only argue with you that a lot do not even think of it as greedy. They conflate capitalism with “freedom” and socialism with “not freedom.” And that happens because of the past 100 years+ of red scare bullshit.

      • LGOrcStreetSamurai [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        Whenever I see similar polls it makes me consider the average American doesn’t see the terms capitalism and socialism like we do. The average person sees these as character traits, not movements or distinct economic structures. Capitalist simply means greedy businessman, nothing structural. Socialism is high taxes and government doing stuff.

        I would very much agree with your assessment. I think the public discourse has failed to get the idea of structural thought into these words. It’s really sad to me that while most people would totally be onboard with socialism and communism but lack the language to even understand what they actually are. I always feel like you have describe Socialism in these very obtuse ways to obfuscate what it’s called to get average Americans onboard. As soon as you call it what it is, they bug out.

        • Justice@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, that’s propaganda in effect. But I do reject the notion that people, even my fellow dipshit Burgers, need to have socialism spoonfed to them. Not that you were advocating for that, but many do, often as a joke but not always.

          Many leftists and “leftists” get caught up in this weird debate perversion/ 24/7 media cycle spin spin spin spin talking points driven thing mixed with caveats upon caveats instead unapologetically just saying shit.

          I would say if advocates made it super simple like: “do you believe in democracy? Do you want things to be run as the majority of people want it to be run? Then why do you not extend that to the workplace?” Make them turn those rusty cogs and force them to consider the fact that they do not own capital. They do own no factories, they probably aren’t landlords, they in fact suffer under the boot of those people. And you tell them that you simply support an economic system that says “no, those people do not get to do that. The people will decide how rents are handled and how wages are determined- not owners.”

          I mean it’s super anecdotal but my Trump-enjoying dad (he admits he’s a dumbass, but I think he finds Trump just entertaining) was pretty much fully on board with this furiously nodding his head along. I never broke the news to him that he just endorsed communism and will surely be executed beside me someday.

          But seriously, you’re right that the words have absolutely been poisoned. I don’t think we should abandon correct terminology though. Just maybe cut the 30 minute “definitions of socialism” which include 28 minutes of “I formally renounce the atrocities of…[insert every socialist nation ever].” I get why people feel the need the need to do that, but capitalists will never renounce Jefferson, or Andrew Jackson, or Reagan, or Clinton, or Obama… etc. to include every neoliberal, liberal, fascist, etc. that has ever existed. I guess my problem is… people are cowards. They won’t just speak out and say how they feel, they recoil instantly from any accusation of “supporting Xi” etc. There are good reasons to be afraid, look at what the Israeli lobbies and their little shitty Gestapo squads are doing to student protesters right now, but if people want to be on the right side of things, if that means something to them, you have to take on some risk and some pain. The pain of missing a Harvard grad school position due to disgusting essentially Nazis wanting to murder kids is nothing compared to the pain of, I dunno, being those kids and their families.

          So, I dunno how I got off on that rant, but whatever. I just hope recent events radicalize people further. Some cowards will run away and some already have. But for those who truly believe in principles behind socialism and have basic humanity this isn’t a challenge… it just fuels the fire.

    • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Language is fucking us all up. I’ve thought a lot about this, I’ve talked about socialism to all sorts of people, and I think the things we are striving for are much more popular than we think but people just don’t communicate well. Especially when we have been so misinformed by imperialist propaganda.

  • YourFavoriteFed [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hmmm, after spending their formative years with the boomer generation constantly rubbing their lucky breaks in our faces. Smug corpos laughing at us for being arbitrarily told we’re unemployable…it truly is a mystery where the resentment comes from…

  • Bartsbigbugbag@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 year ago

    The lack of trust in the capitalist system is Harvard Business School’s biggest challenge, according to Dean Nitin Nohria[5]. The Business School has always been closely associated with broader trends in the business world, and it must work toward reassuring society that businesses and the capitalist system are productive. The school has taken several actions in an effort to answer that question, including introducing more courses focused on ideas about economic structure. The school is trying to find ways to engage students in conversations about capitalism and its flaws. The school has a second-year course called ‘Reimagining Capitalism’ that has become one of its most successful second-year electives. The school is also trying to bring that material back into the first year of its MBA curriculum.

    Lol of course.

    • muddi [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember in school when we had US history for the sixth time for social studies class, they taught us again about the early debates in the Federalist Papers on how the baby democracy might turn into a monster by allowing the majority to win votes somehow

      Obviously it’s better to have a tyranny of the minority than the tyranny of the majority, some dead guy in a wig said so

      • YourFavoriteFed [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        So, if democracy is bad…then why not adopt technocracy and not let those rubes anywhere near a position of power?

        The American Medical Association, after extensive research, has found that me being trans is not a sign there’s anything wrong with me. Who cares if 99% of this shithole wants me dead? Experts say I’m fine and that’s all that matters. Not my fault most people are unthinking morons.

        • muddi [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Designing the optimal governing system is idealist, but I do admit I am interested in the topic. My picks are sociocracy and liquid democracy, which might be described like a crossover between direct democracy and technocratic representation

          In the end though, it’s dependent on material conditions how we should organize ourselves

  • Dagwood222
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m amazed that 49% support it.

    In 1960 US minimum wage was $1.00/hour and the cost of the average house was $11,000.00* A high school grad could move out and be self supporting instantly.

    *Unless you’re ready to prove that inflation is the reason houses today are larger and have things like air conditioning, don’t tell me that modern houses are ‘better.’

    • kristina [she/her]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A lot of older houses also had better passive cooling and more design consideration towards the environment (facing where prevailing winds come from, having wind funnels, chimneys that expel heat from the house, large cool basements that people would move into during the summer, not chopping down all trees within 3 miles)

    • J Lou@mastodon.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Even the ethical principles that many ideological capitalists claim support it don’t actually support it. It is unfortunate that some workers support it

  • duderium [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is cool but there’s still a big leap to be taken between disliking capitalism and actually advocating for communism. A year or two ago a friend of mine admitted that capitalism is fucked, but he couldn’t bring himself to support communism because he thinks that communism basically means universal concentration camps. “You get a concentration camp! And you get a concentration camp!” It’s common enough for people to admit that things are fucked up, but their solution usually revolves around electing good capitalist puppets to replace the bad capitalist puppets, and/or to do some kind of genocide against minorities who have nothing to do with societal problems. Plenty of these respondents probably believe that something like “crony capitalism” is at fault and that we need to go back to the good old days when a man could get ahead if he worked hard (i.e., during the enclosures).

    • TreadOnMe [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is a particular irony about the proletarian from the country with the highest prisoner population per capita (probably of all time) thinking that ‘communism’ means ‘concentration camps’.

    • goldfish [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      It seems like anarchism is the trendy replacement for capitalism these days. It fits better with the Western ideal of individualism. And I get it, it would be great if we could all just do whatever we want and not have anyone tell us what to do, but it’s not practical. Like government is gonna be around for the foreseeable future and insisting on anarchism kinda prevents working on a better government

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        ‘All do whatever and no one tell us what to do,’ there is a lot more to anarchism than that though. You can work on a better government currently while still striving for the ultimate removal of the state.

        • goldfish [they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          yeah, I know there is more to it, but doesn’t it still ultimately boil down to that? even if “we” is small communities rather than individuals

  • WIIHAPPYFEW [he/him, they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    I just wanna see a poll going over the percentage of outright communists someday (although tbh it would probably also have a selection for fascist that would have twice the percentage jokerfication)

      • Kaplya [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No offense, but have you been talking to people? My friends who think they’re socialists think this means paying more taxes for public infrastructure, or taxing the corporations more to pay for it.

        At the same time, they hate communism, which they think is trying to give people free stuff without having to work and make everyone receive the same salary. I have a friend, self-proclaimed socialist, thinks Andrew Yang is a communist because he wants to give people universal basic income.

        These are the “socialists” you’re dealing with.

  • Wordplay [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m in a town where basic shelter is unaffordable and constantly features puff pieces about the plights of our landlords, and the local subreddit has the majority of locals calling landlords parasites. All that’s missing is a vanguard that can organize and guide this sentiment.

  • quarrk [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    The cynic in me reads this as ~48% of youths want more libraries, but would still froth as hard as any boomer if you suggest union busting is wrong, or something cool like we should nationalize Amazon